{ "id": 5176806, "name": "William S. Eden et al. v. Nat Drey", "name_abbreviation": "Eden v. Drey", "decision_date": "1898-03-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "102", "last_page": "106", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "75 Ill. App. 102" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "55 Barb. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 2251963 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/55/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "9 Wend. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2011141 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/9/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Wend. (N. Y.) 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 Barb. 361", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 5777278 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/4/0361-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Cush. (Mass.) 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "case_ids": [ 1970476 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/65/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Barb. 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Barb.", "case_ids": [ 5777269 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/barb/5/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Md. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1796626 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/md/21/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Johns. (N. Y.) 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Johns. Ch.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "33 N. Y. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2042016 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/33/0571-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Wend. 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wend.", "case_ids": [ 2151954 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wend/21/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N. Y. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2335767 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny-2d/44/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Miss. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 Me. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 8843932 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/me/71/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 Mass. (4 Cush.) 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "119" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "37 Ga. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 281192 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ga/37/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Md. 434", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1858121 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/md/11/0434-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 N. Y. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 525487 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/61/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Biss. 465", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Biss.", "case_ids": [ 6663678 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/f-cas/17/1098-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 N. Y. 34", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 502240 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/39/0034-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 Mich. 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1932101 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/3/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ind. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1484935 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/10/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Vt. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 4445065 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/vt/49/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Vt. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 4428419 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/vt/26/0316-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Vt. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Vt.", "case_ids": [ 4424312 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/vt/23/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5294155 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2584331 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/14/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ill. 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2592325 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/17/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Cush. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Cush. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cush.", "case_ids": [ 1986228 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/58/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ill. App. 618", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5204797 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/69/0618-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N. Y. 179", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2335767 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny-2d/44/0179-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ga. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 281192 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/37/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 Ill. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5294155 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/42/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ill. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2584331 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/14/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 Ill. 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2592325 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/17/0302-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 559, "char_count": 9899, "ocr_confidence": 0.58, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.859271727389666e-07, "percentile": 0.8999783385054495 }, "sha256": "4412528531c7bece11afd838a7f0e3f2853945a2c8099c4e0933b139e704bd68", "simhash": "1:aec9666ef287b487", "word_count": 1788 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:19:06.025093+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "William S. Eden et al. v. Nat Drey." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Sears\ndelivered the opinion oe the Court.\nCounsel for appellants contend, first, that there was evidence tending to excuse appellants from the presumption of negligence, and hence that the case should have been left to the jury without peremptory instruction; second, that at the time of the loss of the goods by misdelivery, the relation of inn keeper and guest had not been established between appellant and appellee, and hence that there was no liability; and third, that the responsibility of the inn keeper for the safe keeping of the baggage and chattels of a guest does not extend to merchandise carried for purposes of sale.\nIt is the rule that loss of the goods of a guest, while at an inn, is presumptive evidence of negligence on the part of the inn keeper. Metcalf v. Hess, 14 Ill. 129; Story on Bailments, 472.\nAnd in case of such loss \u201c the inn keeper can alone absolve himself from liability by showing that the loss * * * occurred without any fault whatever on his part, or by the fault of the guest,\u201d etc. Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 302; Kelsey v. Berry, 42 Ill. 469.\nThere is no evidence in this case tending to show that the loss was either without fault of appellants, or through fault of appellee. On the contrary, it is undisputed that appellants\u2019 negligence in insisting upon a misdelivery was the cause of loss. The mere fact that a guest does not ask for his baggage or inquire as to its safety for a period of several days after its reception by his host, the inn keeper, can not be said, under such circumstances as appear here, to constitute negligence. If there was no defense the trial court was warranted in instructing the jury to find for the plaintiff. Williams v. Moore, 69 Ill. App. 618.\nThe relation of inn keeper and guest was established by the reception of the baggage. When the baggage was received, as here, by the inn keeper, and the owner delivered it for the purpose of becoming a guest and soon afterward did become an inmate of the hotel, the responsibility of the inn keeper for the safe keeping of the baggage will be held to have begun at its reception, even though such reception was prior to the time when the owner came personally infra hospitium. Dickinson v. Winchester, 4 Cush. 114; Sasseen v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242.\nThe responsibility of an inn keeper is not necessarily limited to such baggage as is carried for convenience of travel but extends as well to merchandise carried by a guest, when received by the inn keeper as here shown. Calye\u2019s Case, 8 Coke, 32; Berkshire Woolen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. 428; Wilkins v. Earle, 44 N. Y. 179.\nIt would appear from this record that no other result could have properly obtained than that which was directed by the trial court.\nThe judgment is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Sears" } ], "attorneys": [ "Buruham & Baldwin-, attorneys for appellants.", "Lee & Lawrence, attorneys for appellee; Frank Johnston, of counsel." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "William S. Eden et al. v. Nat Drey.\n1. Hotel Keepers\u2014Loss of Baggage Presumptive Evidence of Negligence.\u2014The loss of the goods of a guest while at an inn, is presumptive evidence of negligence on the part of the inn keeper, and in case of such loss, the inn keeper can alone absolve himself from liability by showing that the loss occurred without any fault whatever on his part,, or by the fault of the guest.\n2. Same\u2014Failure of Quest to Ask for Baggage Not Negligence.\u2014The mere fact that a guest does not ask for his baggage or inquire as to its safety for a period of several days after its reception by his host, the inn keeper, can not be said under such circumstances as appear in this case, to constitute negligence.\n3. Same\u2014When Liability for Baggage Commences.\u2014When baggage is received by an inn keeper, and the owner delivers it for the purpose of becoming a guest and soon afterward does become a guest of the hotel, the responsibility of the inn keeper for the safe keeping of the baggage will be held to have begun at its reception, even though such reception was prior to the time when the owner arrived.\n4. Same\u2014Liability for Baggage Extends to Merchandise Carried by a Quest.\u2014The responsibility of an inn keeper is nos necessarily limited to such baggage as is carried for convenience of travel, but extends as well to merchandise carried by a'guest when received by the inn keeper as shown in this case.\n5. Trials \u2014Instructions to Find for the Plaintiff\u2014When Proper.\u2014 Where a plaintiff makes out a clear case, and there is no defense, the trial court is warranted in instructing the jury to find for the plaintiff.\nTranscript, from a justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the October term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 24, 1898.\nStatement of the Case.\nThe undisputed facts in this case are that appellee became a guest of appellants, inn keepers; that within two or three hours previous to the time when appellee arrived at the hotel, registered and was assigned a room, two boxes, bearing appellee\u2019s name and containing merchandise carried for sale, were delivered at appellants\u2019 hotel, taken in charge by the porter and placed in the baggage room; that these boxes were by mistake of the inn keepers, appellants, misdelivered, i. e., delivered to another guest, one Lillis, who informed the porter that the boxes were not the ones which he was expecting. In spite of the disclaimer of Lillis, the porter persisted that they must be his boxes, and opened them in Lillis\u2019 room. Lillis disposed of part of the merchandise contained in the boxes, whereby the same was lost to appellee.\nAppellee testified that when the boxes were delivered at the hotel he was present, and directed the porter as to caring for them. This can hardly be said to have been disputed, although the effect of Eden\u2019s testimony would be that appellee was not at the hotel and did not register until two or three hours later. It does not appear that Eden could have had knowledge as to any interview between appellee and a porter.\nIn this suit, brought to recover the value of the goods so lost, the trial court held that there was no evidence to establish a defense, and instructed the jury to find for appellee, the plaintiff.\nBuruham & Baldwin-, attorneys for appellants.\nIn Illinois, inn keepers are not insurers of their guest\u2019s property, but are excused by showing that they were in no wise negligent or that their guest was guilty of contributory negligence. Schouler\u2019s Bailments (2d Ed.), par. 288; Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 302; Metcalf v. Hess, 14 Ill. 129; Kelsey v. Berry, 42 Ill. 469; Merritt v. Claghorn, 23 Vt. 177; McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 316; Howe Machine Co. v. Pease, 49 Vt. 477; Dawson v. Chamney, 5 Q. B. Adolf & E. (N. S.) 164; Cashill v. Wright, 6 El. & Bl. 890; Story on Bailments (18th Ed.), par. 472; Howth v. Franklin, 20 Texas, 798; Laird v. Eichold, 10 Ind. 212.\nThe inn keeper\u2019s liability can in no case arise until the relation of inn keeper and guest is established by contract, express or implied. Wright v. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51; Grosvenor v. New York C. R. R. Co., 39 N. Y. 34; Strauss v. The County Hotel and W. Co., 12 Q. B. Div. 27; Schouler\u2019s Bailments (2d Ed.), par. 285.\nThe inn keeper\u2019s liability extends only to the personal property and effects o\u00ed .guests. Merchandise brought into a hotel for sale does not come within the rule. Schouler\u2019s Bailments (2d Ed.), par. 303; Burgess v. Clements, 4 Maule & S. 306; Myers v. Cottrill, 5 Biss. 465; Mowers v. Fethers, 61 N. Y. 34; McDaniels v. Robinson, 28,Vt. 387; Pettigrew v. Barnum, 11 Md. 434.\nLee & Lawrence, attorneys for appellee; Frank Johnston, of counsel.\nThe liability of a hotel keeper for the care of goods begins from the time of the delivery of the goods to a servant of the hotel. Sasseen & Whitaker v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242; Dickinson v. Winchester, 58 Mass. (4 Cush.) 114, 119; Edwards on Bailments, Sec. 460.\nIn the absence of a special agreement an inn keeper receives goods intrusted to his care, in his capacity as inn keeper. Hilton v. Adams, 71 Me. 19; Richmond v. Smith, 8 Barn. & Cress. 9; Needles v. Howard, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 61; Epps v. Hinds, 27 Miss. 663.\nThe inn keeper\u2019s responsibility is not limited to baggage,\u201d like a carrier, but extends to all goods and chattels which the guest may bring to the inn. Wilkins v. Earle, 44 N. Y. 179; Piper v. Manny, 21 Wend. 282; Hulett v. Swift, 33 N. Y. 571; Berkshire, etc., Co. v. Proctor, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 426; Hilton v. Adams, 71 Me. 19; Needles v. Howard, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 54; Clute v. Wiggins, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 175; Sneider v. Geiss, 1 Yeates (Pa.), 34; Richmond v. Smith, 8 Barn. & Cress. 9; Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 302; Metcalf v. Hess, 14 Ill. 129; Lawson on Bailments, Sec. 283; Story on Bailments, Sec. 481.\nIt is not necessary to give notice to an inn keeper of the arrival of goods. Burrows v. Trieber, 21 Md. 320; McDonald v. Edgerton, 5 Barb. 560; Bennet v. Mellor, 5 T. R. 273; Calye\u2019s Case, 8 Coke, 32.\nThe liability of the inn keeper for the goods of his guest extends to all parts of the inn. Burrows v. Trieber, 21 Md. 320; McDonald v. Edgerton, 5 Barb. 560; Story on Bailments, Sec. 479.\nA bailee, whether gratuitous or for hire, who delivers the goods he has as bailee to the wrong person, and offers no proof showing it was without fault, is liable, as a matter of law. Lichtenhein v. Boston & P. Ry. Co., 11 Cush. (Mass.) 70; Willard v. Bridge, 4 Barb. 361; Hall v. Boston & W. Ry. Co., 14 Allen (Mass.), 439; Lockwood v. Bull, 1 Cowen (N. Y.), 322; Beardslee v. Bichardson, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 26; Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wend. 268.\nWhere property comes to the possession of an inn keeper, and is afterward delivered by him to the wrong person, or otherwise lost, he is liable, as a matter of law, in the absence of explanation of the loss or misdelivery, whether it be as an inn keeper, or not, and whether he is a gratuitous bailee or a bailee for hire. Coykendall v. Eaton, 55 Barb. 188; Murray v. Clarke, 2 Daly (N. Y.), 102." }, "file_name": "0102-01", "first_page_order": 102, "last_page_order": 106 }