Miller v. Peeples
Miller v. Peeples
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The relation of guest and innkeeper was intentionally ended by the aet of the guest, who paid his bill and had his name stricken from the register of guests, for the purpose of freeing himself from liability as a guest, and he could not thereafter, and while he was not a guest, claim the rights of one as to the baggage he left behind him. The expectation thereafter to become a guest did not continue the relation terminated at his instance and for his advantage by settling his account for entertainment. An innkeeper is chargeable as such, because of the profit derivable from entertaining. The right to charge is the criterion of the innkeeper’s liability. When the liability of the guest to be charged as such ceases, his claim on the innkeeper as such expires, subject only to the right to hold him responsible for the baggage of the guest for such, time as may be reasonable to effect a removal, to be determined by circumstances.
Upon the facts of this case the respective rights which spring from the relation of innkeeper and guest did not exist, for one cannot escape the just burdens of a particular relation, and at the same time claim the advantages incident to it.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Rowan Miller v. Peeples & Branum
- Cited By
- 8 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. IircnEEEPER. Liability for baggage lost by one not a guest. Payment of bill. M., who had spent the night at an inn, paid his bill and had his name checked from the register in order to release himself of liability as a guest during a day’s absence at a neighboring town, where he went on business, intending to return at night. During his absence a valise left by him with a friend in the room which he had occupied before leaving the inn was lost. He demanded payment for his valise and contents, which being refused he brought suit for the value thereof against the innkeeper. B.eld, that the relation of innkeeper and guest having been intentionally terminated by M., he cannot hold the innkeeper responsible for the loss of his valise, which occurred after he had ceased to be a guest of the inn. The fact that he expected to return and again become a guest of the inn did not continue the relation of guest and host during his absence. 2. Same. Criterion of liability. Mutual rights of guest and hoét. An innkeeper is chargeable as such because of the profit derivable from entertaining. The right to charge is the criterion of his liability. When the liability of the guest to be charged as such ceases, his claim on the innkeeper expires, subject only to his right to hold the innkeeper responsible for his baggage during such time as may be reasonable, under the circumstances, to effect a removal thereof. .