Rockwell v. Proctor
| Decision Date | 30 June 1869 |
| Citation | 39 Ga. 105 |
| Parties | O. ROCKWELL, plaintiff in error. v. D. G. PROCTOR, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Inn-keepers. Jurisdiction of Justice-Courts. Decided by Judge Green. Monroe Superior Court. November Term, 1869.
Rockwell sued Proctor, in the Justice-Court, as an inn-keeper, for the value of an overcoat left at said inn, and lost. Proctor plead the general issue, and that he never, as said inn-keeper, had said coat. The case was on the appeal.
Rockwell testified that he arrived at Frosyth, went to the hotel kept by Proctor, and was met in the reception room by a negro man, Guilford, who handed him the book in which guests registered their names. No white person was present. Rockwell registered his name and walked out. He returned, and found no person but Guilford and a negro barber. He asked Guilford where guests deposited their baggage or overcoats. Guilford replied, "there, on those shelves." Rockwell pulled off his overcoat, and asked Guilford and the *barber if it would be safe there, and they both said it would. He left his overcoat on said shelves, and again went out on business. When he returned, his overcoat was gone. He enquired for defendant, was told he was at his store in a different part of town, went to see him, and asked payment for the overcoat. Proctor refused to pay him. He said his overcoat was worth $30 00, that its price was $45 00; but he paid only $40 00 for it. He showed by another witness that Proctor had been keeping an hotel in said house since December, 1861.
Plaintiff closed. Defendant's attorney moved to dismiss the cause because it was a suit for damages, and not for a trespass, and therefore, the Justice-Court had no jurisdiction. The Court overruled the motion, upon the ground that it came too late, as the general issue had been plead, and no plea to the jurisdiction had been filed at the first term.
Proctor then testified that said reception room was a part of his hotel, but that his habit was to take the baggage of guests to a private room, and lock it up; that his son, who usually attended to the hotel, was, that day, absent, in the country, on business, and that he was at his store; that Guilford was employed by him as a wagoner, and not to keep the hotel, and said barber had nothing to do with the hotel. He further said that Rockwell told him his overcoat cost him $50 00.
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff for $30 00 and costs. Proctor's attorney sued out a certiorari, alleging that the Justice erred in not dismissing said cause, and that the verdict was contrary to law, and without evidence to support it. The Court sustained the certiorari on both grounds, and this is assigned as error. James S. Pinckard, for plaintiff in error.
A. D. Hammond, (by the Reporter,) for defendant.
This was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Traylor v. Hyatt Corp.
...have been generally expected to be found in the car of a single guest; but in this connection see: Sasseen v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242; Rockwell v. Proctor, 39 Ga. 105; Bohler v. Owens, 60 Ga. 185; Murchison v. Sergent, 69 Ga. 206; Coskery v. Nagle, 83 Ga. 696, 10 S.E. 491; Carhart v. Wainman, 114......
-
A. A. A. Parking, Inc. v. Bigger
...bring an action ex delicto (Miller v. Ben H. Fletcher Co., 142 Ga. 668(2, 3), 83 S.E. 521), or he may declare upon the contract (Rockwell v. Proctor, 39 Ga. 105). 'But it is not every breach of contract that gives a cause of action in tort; and so, where the breach complained of is simply t......
-
Bates v. Bigby
... ... the tort, or waive the tort and sue in assumpsit for a breach ... of the contract of bailment. 5 Cyc. 214. In Rockwell v ... Proctor, 39 Ga. 105, the suit was against an innkeeper ... for the value of a lost overcoat deposited with him by a ... guest. It was held ... ...
-
In re Tollman-Hundley Dalton, LP, Bankruptcy No. 91-40553-HR.
...between a guest and an innkeeper may be, and often is, based on an implied contract rather than a written agreement. O. Rockwell v. Proctor, 39 Ga. 105 (1869). It is equally settled that innkeepers are not the same as landlords. Bonner at 297-310. Under the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 2-10......