#### Rafael Palas, Appellee, v. Harvey Room Company. Appellant.

Gen. No. 23,869.

(Not to Tbe reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Innkeepebs, § 7 * — when liable for loss of money deposited with cleric by guest. Where the guest of an innkeeper deposits money with the latter’s clerk for safe-keeping and the clerk absconds with it, the innkeeper will be liable.

2. Innkeepebs — right by notice to require conformance by guests with rules. An innkeeper may by notice require his guests to conform to reasonable rules.

3. Innkeepebs — when no right to limit liability to guests by posted notice. Except as provided by the statute (J. & A. If 6193), an innkeeper may not limit his legal liability to his guests by posting a notice.

4. Innkeepers, § 7* — right of guest to assume that cleric is *581 proper person with whom, to leave money. An innkeeper’s guest has the right to assume that the innkeeper’s clerk, who has charge of the office, is one with whom he may properly leave money up to a reasonable amount for safe-keeping.

*580Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John P. Haas, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 10, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action Toy Rafael Palas, plaintiff, against Harvey Room Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover for the loss of money intrusted to defendant’s clerk for safe-keeping while plaintiff was a guest in defendant’s hotel. From a judgment for plaintiff for $140, defendant appeals.

Glenn P. Sayers, for appellant.

George W. Cullen, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.

*5815. Innkeepers — what is essential to limitation of liability for guest’s money deposited with clerh by posted notice. To limit an innkeeper’s liability for a guest’s money, intrusted to the innkeeper’s clerk, by posting a notice, it is necessary that the notice shall have been clear and explicit and that the innkeeper show that knowledge of the notice was brought home to the guest, and the mere posting on the hotel wall of r. sign reading, “Not responsible for valuables or money lost or stolen in its premises beyond the value of $5.00,” without any showing that it was brought to the guest’s knowledge, is not sufficient to relieve the innkeeper from liability for a sum of money in excess of that amount intrusted by a guest to the clerk and stolen by him.