{
  "id": 2752429,
  "name": "Ruth Donaldson, Defendant in Error, v. Wellington Hotel Company, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Donaldson v. Wellington Hotel Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-12-17",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,671",
  "first_page": "623",
  "last_page": "625",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "175 Ill. App. 623"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "250 Ill. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3430664
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/250/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5459265
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/141/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 Ill. 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5539132
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/173/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. 409",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5315075
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/82/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 Ill. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3141787
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/157/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 Ill. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5545631
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/179/0112-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 3980,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08406474663194649
    },
    "sha256": "3f06a3715b383f9a4362f644eeb6527ba0353681ba485c85b11f6a9f8fbce7b0",
    "simhash": "1:c7169c254f2efa7f",
    "word_count": 695
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:46:29.550855+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ruth Donaldson, Defendant in Error, v. Wellington Hotel Company, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nFor convenience the parties herein will be referred to by the titles used in the trial court.\nPlaintiff had been a guest at defendant\u2019s hotel. She owed $22 for her accommodations and left her trunk there as security. About three months afterward in a telephone conversation with defendant\u2019s clerk, she was told that she could adjust her bill for the sum of $12 and have her trunk. A few days later, with the purpose of paying the same, she again called up the hotel and was then informed that the trunk had been sold. This information was given in good faith, but proved to be a mistake. She then brought an action for conversion of the trunk and its contents. Defendant pleaded its statutory lien and right to hold the property until its charges were paid. The trunk and contents were produced at the trial and there tendered to plaintiff on condition that she pay such charges. She had never paid nor tendered them. The court\u2019s finding and judgment was for plaintiff in the sum of $175.\nIt is apparent that under this statement of facts there was no conversion, actual or constructive, and, therefore, no basis for an action therefor. Presumably, misled by the information that the property had been sold, plaintiff brought the suit on the theory that she had not received due notice of the sale. But the facts were different. There had been no sale, and her bill remaining unpaid defendant still had the right to hold such baggage. It had exercised no wrongful dominion over the property that could be construed into a conversion; and had not waived its lien. Plaintiff made no demand for the property and no tender of the sum due. There was no proof of what was essential to her action, her right to possession of the property at the time it was commenced. Dawes v. Rosenbaum, 179 Ill. 112; Union Stock Yard & Transit Co. v. Mallory, Son & Zimmerman Co., 157 Ill. 554; Owens v. Weedman, 82 Ill. 409.\nThe misrepresentation that the trunk had been sold was made under mistake in the belief that the property had shortly previous been sold at auction with other property, but a search revealed the mistake. Under such circumstances there was no estoppel by conduct. Wright v. Stice, 173 Ill. 571; Reiss v. Hanchett, 141 Ill. 419. The finding of the court was contrary to the evidence and the law. The judgment, therefore, will be reversed with a finding that defendant is not guilty of conversion as charged in the statement of claim, to the issues raised by which the plaintiff was confined. Walter Cabinet Co. v. Russell, 250 Ill. 416.\nReversed with finding of fact.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gorham & Wales, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Rudolf Frankenstein, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ruth Donaldson, Defendant in Error, v. Wellington Hotel Company, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,671.\n1. Innkeepers\u2014when baggage not converted. A guest left her trunk at a hotel as security for debt and on returning to pay a compromise offer was mistakenly informed in good faith that the trunk was sold. The guest did not demand the property or tender the sum due and brought an action for conversion of the trunk and its contents, which were produced at the trial and tendered to plaintiff on condition that she pay the charges. Held, as there was no proof of plaintiff\u2019s right to possession of the property at the time suit was commenced, there was no conversion, actual or constructive, and the action could not he maintained.\n2. Estoppel\u2014statements made by mistake. Where a guest leaves a trunk at a hotel as security for a bill and on returning to pay the bill is, through mistake, informed that it has been sold, there is no estoppel by conduct precluding the hotel company from proving in an action for conversion that the trunk had not been sold.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Arthtjb W. Deseem, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nReversed with finding of fact.\nOpinion filed December 17, 1912.\nGorham & Wales, for plaintiff in error.\nRudolf Frankenstein, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0623-01",
  "first_page_order": 641,
  "last_page_order": 643
}