Wear v. Gleason
| Decision Date | 11 January 1890 |
| Citation | 12 S.W. 756,52 Ark. 364 |
| Parties | WEAR v. GLEASON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
APPEAL from Pulaski Circuit Court, J. W. MARTIN, Judge.
Wear Boogher & Co. brought this action against L. D. Gleason, to recover the value of a trunk and its contents, left at the defendant's hotel by John R. Boddy, the traveling salesman of the plaintiffs. The complaint alleges that the trunk was left with the defendant as inn-keeper, and that as such he agreed to hold it and deliver it to Boddy on demand but that he negligently and wrongfully delivered it to a third person, by whom it was carried away, and that it was thus wholly lost to the plaintiffs. The answer denies that the trunk was left with the defendant as inn-keeper, or that he negligently delivered it to any one not entitled to it. The evidence shows that Boddy was a guest at the defendant's hotel on the 19th day of August, 1887. After paying his bill, he asked the defendant to loan him $ 25.00 on the security of the trunk referred to, which he stated to the defendant that he was going to leave at the hotel. The defendant replied that he would lend the sum requested, but that he wanted no security for it. Boddy then gave the defendant his due bill for $ 25.00, and received from him that sum. The defendant offered to give a check for the trunk, which Boddy declined. Before leaving he gave his railroad check to the defendant, and the latter sent a porter to the railroad depot and got the trunk. Some time afterwards a man called at the hotel, and pointing out Boddy's trunk, which was in the hall, said it was his, and that he wanted it sent to the railroad baggage room to be checked. The defendant sent the trunk to the baggage room of the depot, as requested, and it has not been heard of since. The court refused to instruct the jury that the defendant held the trunk as an inn-keeper. The verdict was for the defendant, and a new trial having been refused the plaintiffs, they appealed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
U. M. & G. B. Rose, for appellants.
1. When one becomes a guest at an inn, and upon leaving allows his baggage to remain with the consent of the host, the latter continues to hold the baggage as an inn-keeper until it is called for, or until a reasonable time for its removal has elapsed. 41 Ga. 65; S. C. 5 Am. Rep., 524; 9 Pick. 280; 2 Daly 102; 2 Sd. Ray, 866. When property is entrusted to a bailee of any description, and is not produced upon demand the burden is upon him to account for the loss. 11 Cush., 70; 14 Allen, 448; 7 Cow., 497; 10 Watts, 335; 22 La.Ann. 415.
2. Every bailee, whether gratuitous or for hire, is bound to deliver the bailment to the bailor, or rightful owner, and it is no excuse for him to say that he has delivered it by mistake to another. Edwards on Bailments, 2d ed., scs. 99, 162; Story Bailments, sec. 450; 4 Barb., 361; 9 id., 176; 4 Wend., 613; 6 Bush., 251; 20 La. Ann., 297; 31 Mo. 577; 35 Ala. 209; 1 Caldwell, 372; 25 Texas, 655; 55 Barb., 188. Even if Gleason was a mere gratuitous bailee, he was liable for gross negligence, supra.
Sanders & Watkins, for appellee.
1. The court correctly charged the law as to inn-keeper and guest, and where the relation ceases, in the first instruction asked by defendant. Edwards on Bailment, p. 393; Schouler on Bailments, sec. 298; 60 Miss. 822; 22 Fla., p. 627; 26 Vt. 330; 2 Lea, 312.
2. The evidence does not make out a case of gross negligence, sufficient to render a gratuitous bailee liable. Edwards Bailm., pp. 44, 105.
3. Appellant was guilty of contributory negligence in not taking a check.
There is no evidence to show that Gleason received the trunk in the capacity of inn-keeper. Boddy had severed his personal connection with the hotel by surrendering his room and paying his bill before the trunk was delivered to Gleason. It was subsequently delivered to him either under an understanding that it should be held as a pledge for money loaned by him to Boddy or only for the accommodation of Boddy. In neither case would the extraordinary liability incident to the relation of inn keeper and guest arise. Bishop Non Contract Law, secs. 1172, 1180.
If the defendant became a gratuitous bailee, or depositary without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald Land Co. v. Shapleigh Hardware Co.
...account was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. He is not liable, even as a gratuitous bailee. 101 Ark. 81; 103 Ark. 12; 52 Ark. 364; Story on Bailment, § 23; 142 Ark. 4. The creditor's bill was properly dismissed in so far as it sought to cancel the deed to the homestead. Credit......
-
New York Hotel Co. v. Palmer
...96 S.W. 353; 82 Ark. 372; 118 Ark. 349; 123 Ark. 447. No negligence of appellant was shown. It was only a gratuitous bailee. 11 Ark. 189; 52 Ark. 364; 144 Ark. 146. bailment was for mutual benefit, appellant would have been bound only to the use of ordinary care. 136 Ark. 503; 61 Ark. 302; ......
-
Christensen v. Dady
...goods are damaged or lost through his gross negligence. See Rollins v. E. St. L. Cotton Co., 144 Ark. 146, 221 S.W. 452; Wear v. Gleason, 52 Ark. 364, 12 S.W. 756, and Baker v. Bailey, 103 Ark. 12, 145 S.W. 532, 39 L.R.A.,N.S., 1085.2 A reciprocal bailee is responsible for goods entrusted t......
-
McKeever v. Kramer
...bailee responsible only for gross negligence. [Adler v. Planters Hotel Co., 181 S.W. 1062 (St. Louis Court of Appeals); Wear v. Gleason, 52 Ark. 364, 12 S.W. 756; O'Brien v. Vaill, 22 Fla. 627, 1 So. Stewart v. Head, 70 Ga. 449; Hoffman v. Roessle, 81 N.Y.S. 291; Baehr v. Downey, 133 Mich. ......