Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER V.

MONEY AND VALUABLES.

The inn-keeper's liability for money and valuables will form the subject of this chapter. We have already seen that the liability extends to jewelry and money of the guest, and that the amount of money was not limited to his traveling expenses, as in case of a carrier of goods for hire.' The common law liability of an inn-keeper is still in force except as it is modified by statute or special contract. In this State, as in many others, this liability has been modified, and statutes enacted, allowing the inn-keeper to provide a safe in which the money, jewelry and valuable property of his guests may be deposited, and exempting him from all liability for their loss, if the guests see fit to retain such valuables under their control, after receiving notice that a safe has been provided. The old rule is still in force as to inn-keepers who do not provide a safe. The inn-keeper who has no safe can claim no protection under the statute, and must still look after the money and valuables of his guest with the greatest diligence, and his common law liability is in all cases the same, except where it is restricted by statutory provisions. The common law of England is in force in every State except Louisiana, which is regulated by the civil law.

1, See, Chapter III., What is Baggage, p. 99;
2, Ramaley vs. Leland, 43 N. Y., 539;

THE NEW YORK STATUTE FOR PROVIDING SAFES.

The following is the provision of the Laws of 1855, (Chapter 421,) as amended by Section 1, Chapter 227, of the Laws of 1883:

[ocr errors]

Whenever the proprietor or proprietors of any hotel or inn shall provide a safe in the office of such hotel, or other convenient place, for the safe keeping of any money, jewels or ornaments belonging to the guests of such hotel or inn, and shall notify the guests thereof by posting a notice (stating the fact that such safe is provided, in which such money, jewels or ornaments may be deposited) in a public and conspicuous place and manner in the office and public room, and in the public parlors of such hotel; and, if such guest shall neglect to deliver such money, jewels or ornaments to the person apparently in charge of such office for deposit in such safe, the proprietor or proprietors of such hotel shall not be liable for any loss of such money, jewels or ornaments sustained by such guest by theft or otherwise."

The statute originally required this act to be posted in all bed-rooms of the inn, but by the amendment of 1883, it is only necessary to post in the office and public room and in the public parlors. The guest may also now deliver his valuables, etc., to the person who is apparently in charge of the office to have them put in the safe.

The Act of 1855 read, "The proprietor or proprietors of any hotel," not including the term inn; and although, as we have seen, these words are now used synonymously, yet Mr. Edwards, in his work on Bailments, (p. 401–2,) says, that this statute is applicable only to hotels, and further declares that “The

hotel is only an elegant kind of common inn, and it is necessary, as we have seen, to declare against the keeper of it as an inn-keeper. It is in no legal sense either more or less than an inn whatever be the name by which it is called, and hence the difficulty of construing a statute like this, in which a name of pretense is used to designate a favored class." The amendment of 1883, removed the objections urged by the commentator, by applying the Act to both hotels and

inns.

NOTICE TO GUEST THAT SAFE IS PROVIDED.

It has been held in this State that if the guest had personal notice that a safe was provided, it had the same effect as posting a notice. In this case the inn-keeper told his guest when he came to the inn that he had a safe for valuables, and would not be responsible for his unless he placed them therein. The guest did not deposit them, but left $2,000, in gold, in a trunk in his bed-room, which he locked and gave the key to the inn-keeper. The money was stolen out of the trunk, and the court exonerated the landlord from liability for its loss. If the guest have clear and actual notice of a regulation as to the deposit of valuables, and do not comply with it, he assumes the risk of loss happening from any cause except the negligence or fault of the inn-keeper and his servants.2 But the landlord should give clear and unmistakable notice of his regulations, before he can exonerate himself from liability in case of loss.3 In absence of

a statute, directing the manner of notifying guests as

1, Purvis vs. Coleman, 21 N. Y., III;

2,

Stanton vs. Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88; Kellogg vs. Sweeney, 1 Lansing, 397;

3, Van Wyck vs. Howard, 12 How., Pr., 147;

to the fact that a safe had been provided, it seems that a printed notification is not sufficient. The notification must be clear, and brought home to the mind of the guest, or at least to his knowledge in such cases, before he enters and takes possession of his room.' Where the register was headed with a notice, “Money and valuables, it is agreed, shall be placed in the safe in the office; otherwise the proprietor will not be liable for loss," and a guest entered his name on the page below such heading, it was held he was not bound by the notice as there was no proof that such notice was seen by him, or that he assented to its conditions."

It has been held that a notice that the proprietor would not be responsible for loss unless valuables were deposited in a safe, did not apply to those articles. of jewelry which a person usually carries with him, his watch for instance, because such article would be of little service to the owner if stowed away in a hotel safe. But if the watch were a richly jeweled one, set in valuable diamonds, it would be wiser, the court thought, to give it to the proprietor to keep.3 In another case it was held that though a watch, a gold pen, and pencil-case, might in some sense be called jewels, yet they must be considered part of a traveler's personal clothing or apparel, and one after retiring for the night is not expected to send down his ordinary clothing or apparel to be put in the safe.*

2,

I, Morgan vs. Ravey, 30 L. J. Exch., 131; 6 Hurl. & N., 265;
Bernstein vs. Sweeney, 33 N. Y., 271; See also, Kent vs.
Midland Rw., L. R. 10 Q. B., 1; Henderson vs. Ste-
venson, L. R. 2 S. & D., 470; Ramaley vs. Leland, 6
Roberts, 558; s. c. 43 N. Y., 539;

3, Morgan vs. Ravey, 6 Hurl. & N., 265;

4,

Giles vs. Libby, 36 Barb., 70; but see ante.

The extent to which a landlord can escape his liability depends upon the law of the State or country in which he resides. If there is no special statute with which he can comply, no notice will bind the guest unless it can be shown that he saw it before taking his room, or has assented to it.'

NEGLECT TO MAKE DEPOSIT.

In order for an inn keeper to receive the protection of the statute, the guest must have had an opportunity to make a deposit of his money or valuables, and have neglected so to do. Peckham, J.,

says that the Act of 1855 was aimed at losses that should occur by such neglect. "It could have no reference," he says, "to losses at the inn, occurring before the guest had the opportunity to make such deposit, or after he had packed his trunk, locked his room, and given notice for immediate departure, etc., delivered up the key of his room to the clerk to have his trunk brought down."2

The case just referred to has been regarded as a leading authority upon the subject, and therefore we call special attention to the same. The plaintiff, a guest at French's Hotel in New York City, offered to the book-keeper a large package, wrapped in oil cloth, containing jewelry, without disclosing its contents, and requested that it be deposited in the safe of the hotel. The book-keeper replied that it was unnecessary, made no inquiry as to the contents of the package, and directed the plaintiff to take the package to his room, saying that it would be just as safe there.

1, Morgan vs. Ravey, 30, L. J. Ex., 131; Bernstein vs. Swee- · ney, 33 N. Y., 271;

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »