Wagner v. Cong. Square Hotel Co.

• Decision Date: 18 September 1916
• Citation: 98 A. 660
• Parties: WAGNER v. CONGRESS SQUARE HOTEL CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

98 A. 660

WAGNER

v. CONGRESS SQUARE HOTEL CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Sept. 18, 1916.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Cumberland County, at Law.

Action by T. B. Wagner against the Congress Square Hotel Company. Heard on report. Judgment for plaintiff for $300, with interest from the date of the writ.

Argued before SAVAGE, C. J., and CORNISH, KING, BIRD, HALEY, and PHILBROOK, JJ.

Dennis A. Meaher, of Portland, for plaintiff. Verrill, Hale, Booth & Ives, of Portland, for defendant.

SAVAGE, C. J. This case is an action brought to recover from an innkeeper for goods stolen from a guest's room, and comes before the court on report. The plaintiff was a guest at the defendant's hotel three or four days. His testimony tends to show that he was assigned to a room. In a closet in the room he placed his traveling bag, a substantial one, with a very substantial lock. In the bag was a small leather case which contained 13 or 14 scarf pins, one being a pearl pin set with diamonds, one an opal pin, one a ruby, one a black onyx, one a crystal, and several gold. It contained also about 10 pairs of cuff buttons, some of them matching the pins, one set of pearl studs, one set of black onyx studs, and other studs which he was unable to describe. All the articles were worth $743. The plaintiff was a man who traveled much and was in the habit of carrying the case in the bag when he traveled, and he used one or other of the sets of pins, buttons, and studs, as might seem suitable to the occasion, or to the color of his shirt, according to fancy.

The plaintiff claims that, while he was temporarily absent from the hotel, his traveling bag, which he had locked and left in his room, was unlocked by some one and the case and its contents stolen from the bag. It is admitted that he did not offer to deposit the articles with the hotel manager or clerk, and, on the other hand, that the hotel management did not post in any place in the hotel a copy of section 1 of chapter 101, Laws of 1913.

By the common law innkeepers, like common carriers, are insurers of the property of their guests committed to their care, and are liable for its loss, or for injury to it, except when caused by the act of God, the public enemy, or the neglect or fault of the owner or his servants. Shaw v. Berry, 31 Me. 478, 52 Am. Dec. 628; Norcross v. Norcross, 53 Me. 163. And the liability extends to all the movable goods, chattels, and moneys of the guest which are placed within the inn, and is not limited to such as are reasonably necessary for the present use of the guest. Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 417; 2 Kent's Com. (11th Ed.) 684. And the common-law rules are in force except so far as they have been modified by statute.

Under modern conditions, Legislatures have deemed it proper to limit somewhat the liability of innkeepers. In this state, by chapter 174 of the Laws of 1874, now R. S. c. 29, §§ 7 and 8, it was provided that:

"Innholders are not liable for losses sustained by their guests, except for wearing apparel, articles worn or carried upon the person to a reasonable amount, personal baggage and money necessary for traveling expenses and personal use, unless upon delivery or offer of delivery, by such guests, of their money, jewelry or other property, to the innholder, his agent or servants, for safe custody."

The statute further provided that, when the loss is attributable to the negligence of the guest, or to his noncompliance with the reasonable regulations of the inn, brought to his notice, the inkeeper is not liable. Section 6 of chapter 29 provides that in case of loss by fire innholders are answerable only for ordinary care. These statutory provisions are now in force, unless repealed by chapter 101 of the Laws of 1913.

The 1913 statute, so far as necessary now to quote it, is as follows:

"Section 1. No innkeeper * * * who constantly has in his inn * * * a metal safe or suitable vault in good order, and fit for the custody of money, bank notes, jewelry, articles of gold and silver manufacture, precious stones, personal ornaments, railroad mileage books or tickets, negotiable or valuable papers, and bullion, and who keeps on the doors of the sleeping rooms used by guests suitable locks or bolts, and on the transoms and windows of said rooms suitable fastenings, and who keeps a copy of this section printed in distinct type constantly and conspicuously posted in not less than ten conspicuous places in all in said * * * inn, shall be liable for the loss or injury suffered by any guest, unless such guest has offered to deliver the same to such innkeeper * * * for custody in such metal safe or vault, and such innkeeper * * * has omitted or refused to take it and deposit it in such safe or vault for custody and to give such guest a receipt therefor. * * *

"Sec. 2. But such innkeeper * * * may by special arrangement with a guest receive for deposit in such safe or vault any property upon such terms as they may agree to in writing, but every innkeeper * * * shall be liable for any loss of the above enumerated articles of a guest in his inn * * * after said articles have been accepted for deposit if caused by the theft or negligence of the innkeeper * * * or any of his servants."

Section 3 makes it the duty of the guest to demand and of the innkeeper to give a check or receipt for baggage or other articles of property delivered for safe-keeping, elsewhere than to the guest's room, and provide,* that an inkeeper shall not be liable for such baggage or other articles of property unless actually delivered, nor unless the loss occurred through the negligence of the innkeeper or his servants.

"Sec. 4. The liability of the keeper of any inn * * * for loss of or injury to personal property placed by his guests under his car*;, other than that described in the preceding sections, shall be that of a depositary for hire, except that in case such loss * * * is caused by fire not intentionally produced by the innkeeper or his servants, such keeper shall not be liable. * * *

"Sec. 11. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed."

At the outset it is to be noticed that the only statutes relating to losses by guests, and to which the repealing clause in the 1913 statute can apply, are sections 6, 7, and 8 or chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes, to which we have already referred.

The 1913 statute is comprehensive, and when it. is compared with the above-named sections of chapter 29, it will sufficiently appear, we think, that the Legislature intended the latter statute to be a substitute for the former one. The two statutes not only relate to the same subject-matter, but the provisions of the one are inconsistent with those of the other. To illustrate: Under the old statute an innkeeper was...