Kaplan v. Titus

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. Titus

64 Misc. 81, 117 N.Y.S. 944

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Misc. 81 (Kaplan v. Titus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaplan v. Titus, 64 Misc. 81, 117 N.Y.S. 944 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLean, J.

The determination of the trial justice in favor of the plaintiff, in this action to recover damages for the loss of a suit case and contents, warrants no interference by this court, either as to the facts or the law. From the evidence, and according to the running and refreshing definition of the relation as appearing in Crapo v. Rockwell, 48 Misc. Rep. 1, the trial justice was justified in finding that the relation of innkeeper and guest, with its consequent rights and obligations, had existed between the parties, and that, when the latter settled his account and departed and sent for his baggage within an hour thereafter, the liability of the former, as innkeeper, for that baggage had not ceased, the guest, the plaintiff herein, having acted with reasonable promptitude. Although this court has held the contrary (Hoffman v. Roessle, 39 Misc. Rep. 787), finding early support therefor in Wintermute v. Clark, 5 Sandf. 242, and in Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485, we feel constrained to follow the law as later pronounced by the General Term of this department, that “An innkeeper’s liability for the baggage of his guest is not terminated the instant the guest pays his [82]*82bill and leaves the hotel, but continues for such a reasonable time thereafter as may be necessary for him to secure its removal;. * * * This is the rule as between passenger and common carrier, and there is no such substantial distinction in the relation which they bear to each other as to baggage, and that borne by guest and innkeeper, as to require or permit a different rule” (Maxwell v. Gerard, 84 Hun, 537), recognized and followed, as it has been, by the Appellate Division of the second and third departments. Graves v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 29 App. Div. 591, 592; Moffat v. Long Island R. R. Co., 123 id. 719, 721.

The judgment must, therefore, he affirmed.

IGildeesleeve and Seabtjby, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

MacLean, J.

The determination of the trial justice in favor of the plaintiff, in this action to recover damages for the loss of a suit case and contents, warrants no interference by this court, either as to the facts or the law. From the evidence, and according to the running and refreshing definition of the relation as appearing in Crapo v. Rockwell, 48 Misc. Rep. 1, the trial justice was justified in finding that the relation of innkeeper and guest, with its consequent rights and obligations, had existed between the parties, and that, when the latter settled his account and departed and sent for his baggage within an hour thereafter, the liability of the former, as innkeeper, for that baggage had not ceased, the guest, the plaintiff herein, having acted with reasonable promptitude. Although this court has held the contrary (Hoffman v. Roessle, 39 Misc. Rep. 787), finding early support therefor in Wintermute v. Clark, 5 Sandf. 242, and in Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485, we feel constrained to follow the law as later pronounced by the General Term of this department, that “An innkeeper’s liability for the baggage of his guest is not terminated the instant the guest pays his [82]*82bill and leaves the hotel, but continues for such a reasonable time thereafter as may be necessary for him to secure its removal;. * * * This is the rule as between passenger and common carrier, and there is no such substantial distinction in the relation which they bear to each other as to baggage, and that borne by guest and innkeeper, as to require or permit a different rule” (Maxwell v. Gerard, 84 Hun, 537), recognized and followed, as it has been, by the Appellate Division of the second and third departments. Graves v. Fitchburg R. R. Co., 29 App. Div. 591, 592; Moffat v. Long Island R. R. Co., 123 id. 719, 721.

The judgment must, therefore, he affirmed.

IGildeesleeve and Seabtjby, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Misc. 81, 117 N.Y.S. 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-titus-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack