Toxaway Hotel Company v. Smathers Company
Decision Date | 21 February 1910 |
Docket Number | No. 88,88 |
Citation | 54 L.Ed. 558,30 S.Ct. 263,216 U.S. 439 |
Parties | TOXAWAY HOTEL COMPANY v. J. L. SMATHERS & COMPANY et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
From the facts certified it appears that the Toxaway Hotel Company was, in May, 1905, duly incorporated under the laws of Georgia. Among the purposes of the company, as stated in the application for incorporation, were these: 'to conduct hotels for the accommodation of the public, . . . to keep, manage, conduct, and carry on the business of running hotels, cottages, inns, and restaurants, with their usual and necessary adjuncts, including the running of billiard and pool rooms, bowling alleys, buying and selling liquors and tobacco in all their forms, conducting and leasing news and book stands; baths of all kinds, to conduct livery stables, operating farm and fish hatcheries, to run omnibuses and transfer lines, together with all other pursuits incident to the operation of hotels.' The company acquired and operated six hotels, situated in a thinly populated part of the mountains of western North Carolina, having an aggregate capacity of 750 guests. These were carried on from March, 1905, until October, 1906, when an assignment was made. Within four months after such assignment, creditors filed a petition seeking to adjudicate the corporation a bankrupt, as having been 'engaged principally' in trading and mercantile pursuits. It contested adjudication, and averred that it was not a corporation subject to involuntary proceedings, as it had not been principally engaged either in 'trading' or 'mercantile pursuits,' but was a hotel company, and, as such, was not one of the class of corporations specified in the 4th section of the bankrupt act, as amended.
The material facts as to the character of the business done by this corporation are these:
'That the business done by the corporation at these hotels during the first season, from March to October, 1905, as shown by the receipts, amounted to $119,171.36; and that done during the second season, from January 1st to October 1st, 1906, as shown by the receipts, amounted to $127,136.01.
'That during 1905, and until June, 1906, the said corporation did no other business than conducting hotels, excepting the cultivation of a small farm connected with one of the hotels, for the purpose of supplying vegetables and garden truck.
'That said corporation employed about 130 persons in and about the hotels, and 4 persons in and about the stores.'
Upon these facts the bankrupt court adjudicated the corporation bankrupt. An appeal was allowed to the circuit court of appeals, and the question certified as to whether, upon the facts stated, this hotel company is subject to the provisions of the bankrupt act, and liable to be adjudicated a bankrupt.
Messrs. Theodore F. Davidson, Louis M. Bourne, John M. Slaton, Ben Z. Phillips and Haywood Parker for Toxaway Hotel Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 441-444 intentionally omitted] Mr. Julius C. Martin for J. L. Smathers & Company.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 444-445 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Lurton, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court:
The act of 1867 [14 Stat. at L. 517, chap. 176] applied to 'all moneyed business or com- mercial corporations and joint-stock companies.' The present act applies only to such corporations as are 'principally engaged' in certain enumerated kinds of business. That of inn keeping, though as old as civilization, is not specifically enumerated. Unless, therefore, a corporation engaged in the business of hotel keeping is embraced within one or the other of those which are enumerated, it is not liable to an involuntary adjudication.
The contention is that this was a corporation principally engaged in 'trading' or 'mercantile pursuits.'
For the present we shall only deal with the bare question as to whether inn keeping is within a proper definition of 'trading' or 'mercantile pursuits.' The keeping of a bar, cigar and news stand are obviously but ordinary incidents to the main business when conducted within the inn, and primarily for the convenience of guests. The maintenance of a livery and of small pleasure boats for the accommodation of guests may also be accepted as merely incidental to that class of hotels called 'resorts.' The significance of the fact that this company did, in addition to the ordinary business of hotel keeping, engage to a certain extent in an outside trading or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Holland v. Holland City Gas Co.
... ... aside order adjudging Holland City Gas Company a bankrupt, ... and the bankruptcy proceeding itself. The ... For example, it was ... held that hotel companies ( Toxaway Hotel Co. v ... Smathers, 216 U.S ... ...
-
Brevoort Hotel Co. v. Ames
...to so limit the scope of the act either compels or justifies any such conclusion. The cases of Toxaway Hotel Co. v. J. L. Smathers & Co., 216 U. S. 439, 30 S. Ct. 263, 54 L. Ed. 558, and In re United States Hotel Co. (C. C. A.) 134 F. 225, 68 L. R. A. 588, which are relied upon by appellant......
-
Lee v. Jacksonville Gas Co.
... ... Suit by ... the Jacksonville Gas Company and another against J. M. Lee, ... as Comptroller of the ... v. Lee, 126 Fla. 359, 171 ... So. 326; Toxaway Hotel Co. v. Smathers & Co., 216 ... U.S. 439, 30 S.Ct ... ...
-
United States v. American Medical Ass'n, 63221.
...character. See Semler v. Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 55 S.Ct. 570, 79 L.Ed. 1086; Toxaway Hotel Co. v. Smathers & Company, 216 U.S. 439, 30 S.Ct. 263, 54 L. Ed. 558; United States Hotel Co. v. Niles, 6 Cir., 134 F. 225, 68 L.R.A. 588; Harms v. Cohen, D.C., 279 F. 276 (as to mus......