Clute v. Wiggins

14 Johns. 175
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1817
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 14 Johns. 175 (Clute v. Wiggins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clute v. Wiggins, 14 Johns. 175 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The liability of an inn-keeper for such losses, arises from the nature of his employment. He has privileges by special license. He holds out a general invitation to all travellers to come to his house, and he receives a reward for his hospitality. The law, in return, impo'ses on him corresponding duties, one of which is, to protect the property of those whom xhe receives as guests.

[177]*177On general principles applicable to this subject, the defendant is liable for the loss sustained in this case. He received the plaintiff as his guest, for the night, with his loaded sleigh and horses. The sleigh with its contents was put into an out~ house appurtenant to the inn, "where it had been usual for the defendant to receive loads of that description." The doors of this waggon-house were broken open, from which it may be inferred that the building was close, and the doors fastened in such a manner as to promise security. The bags of grain, therefore, may be deemed to have been infra hospaium; and being so, it is not necessary to prove negligence in the inn~ keeper, to make him liable for the loss. (Cayle's Case, 8 Co. 32. Bennet v. 1Uill~r, 5 Term Rep. 273.)

Judgment below affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Buck v. HANKIN
269 A.2d 344 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1970)
Lader v. Warsher
165 Misc. 559 (New York County Courts, 1937)
Ticehurst v. Beinbrink
72 Misc. 365 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)
Bradley Livery Co. v. Snook
55 L.R.A. 208 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1901)
Cohen v. Manuel
40 L.R.A. 491 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1898)
Maloney v. Bacon
33 Mo. App. 501 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1888)
Milford v. Wesley
1 Wilson 119 (Indiana Super. Ct., 1872)
Houser v. Tully
62 Pa. 92 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1869)
Pinkerton v. Woodward
33 Cal. 557 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Treiber v. Burrows
27 Md. 130 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1867)
Hulett v. . Swift
33 N.Y. 571 (New York Court of Appeals, 1865)
Norcross v. Norcross
53 Me. 163 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1865)
Cheesebrough v. Taylor
12 Abb. Pr. 227 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1861)
Shaw v. Berry
31 Me. 478 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1850)
McDonald v. Edgerton
5 Barb. 560 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Morrison v. Ream
1 Pin. 244 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1842)
Albin v. Presby
8 N.H. 408 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1836)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 Johns. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clute-v-wiggins-nysupct-1817.