Cornell v. Huber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cornell v. Huber

92 N.Y.S. 434

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 3, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 92 N.Y.S. 434 (Cornell v. Huber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cornell v. Huber, 92 N.Y.S. 434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODWARD, J.

The complaint clearly is an action to recover on the common-law liability of an innkeeper to one who has been refused the privileges of a guest. The learned Special Term evidently treated it as an action for a penalty under the civil rights act (chapter 1042, p. 974, Laws 1895), and disposed of it on the authority of Lewis v. Hitchcock (D. C.) 10 Fed. 4. The common-law liability of an innkeeper, under the circumstances disclosed by this complaint, is fully recognized in Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485, 38 Am. Dec. 663, and the subject is treated at length in People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418 et seq., 18 N. E. 245, 1 L. R. A. 293, 6 Am. St. Rep. 389.

[435]*435I advise that the interlocutory judgment be reversed, with costs, and that the defendant be allowed 20 days in which to answer. All concur; HOOKER, J., not voting.

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

WOODWARD, J.

The complaint clearly is an action to recover on the common-law liability of an innkeeper to one who has been refused the privileges of a guest. The learned Special Term evidently treated it as an action for a penalty under the civil rights act (chapter 1042, p. 974, Laws 1895), and disposed of it on the authority of Lewis v. Hitchcock (D. C.) 10 Fed. 4. The common-law liability of an innkeeper, under the circumstances disclosed by this complaint, is fully recognized in Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485, 38 Am. Dec. 663, and the subject is treated at length in People v. King, 110 N. Y. 418 et seq., 18 N. E. 245, 1 L. R. A. 293, 6 Am. St. Rep. 389.

[435]*435I advise that the interlocutory judgment be reversed, with costs, and that the defendant be allowed 20 days in which to answer. All concur; HOOKER, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y.S. 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cornell-v-huber-nyappdiv-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack