Ramaley v. Leland
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal by the defendants from an order made at .a special term, denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover the value of money and a watch and chain, &c. alleged to have been stolen from the plaintiff while a guest in the hotel of the defendants; the theft having been committed in the room of the plaintiff, in the night time, after he had retired to bed.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendants from an order made at .a special term, denying a motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover the value of money and a watch and chain, &c. alleged to have been stolen from the plaintiff while a guest in the hotel of the defendants; the theft having been committed in the room of the plaintiff, in the night time, after he had retired to bed. The plaintiff alleged, in his complaint, that being a resident of Pittsburgh, and being on a visit to the city of New York, in April, 1867, he put up and lodged at the Metropolitan hotel, kept by the defendants, in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Robertson, Ch. J.
The defendants would clearly not have been liable' in this case if the property lost by the plaintiff came within the provisions of the act of 1855, relative to hotel keepers, (N. Y. Sess. Laws, 1855, p. 774;) or he made a contract with them not to hold them responsible for such property if not deposited in their safe; or he was guilty of negligence, which contributed to the loss.
The statute of 1855 is very general in its language. By it the proprietors of a hotel are exempted from liability for “the loss of any money, jewels or ornaments, sustained” by a guest…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cole v. Goodwin & StoryNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Gile v. LibbyNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Wilkins v. EarleThe Superior Court of New York City · 1865
3Cited by1 opinion
- The PizarroSupreme Court of the United States · 1817