Bernstein v. Sweeny
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant, for the value of a watch and chain, stolen from plaintiff at the defendant’s hotel. The deféndant was the proprietor of “ Sweeny’s Hotel,” in this city. The house was kept on what is called the “European plan,” i. e., the renting of rooms, with a restaurant for meals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant, for the value of a watch and chain, stolen from plaintiff at the defendant’s hotel. The deféndant was the proprietor of “ Sweeny’s Hotel,” in this city. The house was kept on what is called the “European plan,” i. e., the renting of rooms, with a restaurant for meals. The following notice was put up in each of the rooms: NOTICE. ‘ ‘ Guests are respectfully notified that a safe has been provided, and is kept in the office of this hotel, for the safe-keeping of any money, jewels or ornaments belonging to them, that such money,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Monell, J.
The cases of Wintermute v. Clark, 5 Sandf. 247, and Taylor v. Monnot, 4 Duer, 116, are sufficient authority for us to hold the defendant responsible, as the “proprietor of a hotel f within the meaning of the act of 1855, Sess. Laws of 1855, ch. 421.
There was no error in the instruction to the' jury in respect to the notice printed at the head of the register. There was no proof that it was seen or assented to by the plaintiff, and without such proof, it was not his *275contract (Ramaley v. Leland, 6 Robt., 358). Besides, the court left it to the jury to say whether the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McCluskey v. . CromwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- Burrill v. . BoardmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Wintermute v. ClarkThe Superior Court of New York City · 1851
- Gile v. LibbyNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Hyatt v. TaylorNew York Supreme Court · 1868
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.