Oppenheimer v. Morton Hotel Corporation
| Decision Date | 09 December 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 15262.,15262. |
| Citation | 324 F.2d 766 |
| Parties | Edward D. OPPENHEIMER, Robert A. Burger, and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MORTON HOTEL CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John J. Timmer, Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellants.
Allaben & Massie and Fred Roland Allaben, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for Edward D. Oppenheimer and Robert A. Burger.
Paul S. Goolian, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief for St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
James A. Markle, Detroit, Mich., F. William Hutchinson and Varnum, Riddering, Wierengo & Christenson, Grand Rapids, Mich., of counsel, for appellee.
Before CECIL and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and PECK, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The district judge granted a judgment to the defendant-appellee on its motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs-appellants appealed.
On November 9, 1957, Robert A. Burger, hereinafter sometimes called the guest, a diamond salesman, one of the appellants herein, registered in the hotel of the Morton Hotel Corporation, the appellee, hereinafter called the hotel. Mr. Burger was in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the situs of the hotel, making a pre-Christmas selling trip on behalf of his principal, Edward D. Oppenheimer. After registering, Mr. Burger left the hotel and made some calls upon jewelry merchants. Upon his return to the hotel, he went to the desk and deposited a brief case with the clerk.
Upon receipt of the brief case, the clerk handed Mr. Burger a "Safety Deposit Envelope." This envelope was made up of two parts, an "A check" and a "B Depositor's check." The guest signed the A check but did not fill in the blank space provided for a statement of the value of the article. There was printed on this check the following statement: "In accepting this envelope and contents for safe-keeping, we assume no liability other than that provided for in the Innkeeper's Act of this state, which has limited our liability so that in no event can we be liable for more than the amount specified in the Act." The B Depositor's check was to be signed by the depositor only when the package was called for and in the presence of the clerk on duty. At the time of the deposit the hotel clerk did not inquire as to the contents or value of the brief case nor did the guest comment on its value or contents. The following morning when Mr. Burger attempted to check out it was discovered that the brief case was missing. No trace of it has ever been found since that time.
On September 15, 1958, the appellants Burger and Oppenheimer filed suit in the District Court to recover the sum of $50,000, the alleged value of the diamonds contained in the brief case. Jurisdiction of the Court was invoked by virtue of diversity of citizenship. (Sec. 1332, Title 28 U.S.C.) On November 19, 1959, the court ordered St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company to enter its appearance as a party plaintiff or defendant. The insurance company filed an answer on March 9, 1960. Subsequently, on March 16, 1960, the hotel moved to realign the insurance company as a party plaintiff. On July 28, 1960, this motion was sustained and the insurance company filed a complaint on December 3, 1960.
At a pre-trial hearing on August 28, 1962, the court set the trial date for October 1, 1962. On the appointed day for the trial, the trial judge held a conference with counsel and suggested that counsel for the hotel file a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there were no material issues of fact to be submitted to a jury. The motion was filed and argued to the court. The trial judge sustained the motion in a decision from the bench and awarded the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goncalves v. Regent Intern. Hotels, Ltd.
...which was held by the guest while the other was in the possession of the hotel. (Oppenheimer v. Morton Hotel Corp., 210 F.Supp. 609, affd. 324 F.2d 766.) The court reasoned that since these boxes were similar to the kind employed in banks, they constituted a "safe" within the contemplation ......
-
Powell v. U.S.
...to this issue in this circuit is so limited we look to the decisions in other circuits. In an early case, Oppenheimer v. Morton Hotel Corp., 324 F.2d 766 (6th Cir.1963), the Sixth Circuit found the district court's failure to give ten days notice harmless error because the district court ha......
-
Nuclear Transport & Storage, Inc. v. U.S.
...law that there was no statutory violation or violation of policy which resulted in a denial of due process. In Oppenheimer v. Morton Hotel Corp., 324 F.2d 766, 768 (6th Cir.1963), this court held that it would be a useless procedure to reverse the district court for failure to provide ten d......
-
Spence v. Latting, 74-1288
...See also Reilly v. Doyle, 483 F.2d 123, 125 n.2 (2d Cir. 1973); Ikerd v. Lapworth, 435 F.2d 197 (7th Cir. 1970); Oppenheimer v. Morton Hotel Corp., 324 F.2d 766 (6th Cir. 1963); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2719 at pp. 451-452 (1973). Spence actively participated......