Shoecraft v. Bailey
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Chase Rand Corp. v. Pick Hotels Corp. (Ohio 1958)
- Langford v. Rogers (Mich. 1936)
- Kieffer v. Keough (Tex. App. 1916)
- Clifford v. Stafford (Ill. App. Ct. 1908)
- Meacham v. Galloway (Tenn. 1899)
- Metzger v. Schnabel (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Taylor v. Downey (Mich. 1895)
- State v. Johnson (Wash. 1892)
- Pollock v. Landis (Iowa 1873)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The evidence tends to prove that plaintiff, who was a lumberman, doing business upon the river, came to defendant’s hotel, and, after remaining two or three days, informed defendant that he would be there frequently during the summer, and desired some deduction in the regular charge of the hotel. The defendant agreed to keep him for $1 per day, the regular price beirig $2. Nothing was said as to the length of time plaintiff expected to remain at the hotel. On the day of this agreement plaintiff handed to defendant’s clerk his pocket-, book, for safe-keeping, containing $136, which was, on the
.The distinction between a guest and a boarder seems to be this: “ The guest comes without any bargain for time, remains without one, and may go when he pleases, paying only for the actual entertainment which he receives; and it is not enough to make a boarder, and not a guest, that he has staid a long time in the inn in this way.” 1 Parson’s Contracts, 628 ; Story on Bailments, § 477.
The District Court properly held, that the plaintiff was a guest of the defendant.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.