Richmond against Smith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1828 |
| Date | 25 April 1828 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 946
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 Man. & Ry. 235; 6 L. J. K. B. O. S. 279. Dictum commented on, Morgan v. Ravey, 1861, 6 H. & N. 272.
eichmond against smith. Friday, April 25th, 1828. Where a traveller went to an inn, and desired to have his luggage taken into the commercial room, to which he resorted, from whence it was stolen : Held, that the inn-keeper was responsible, although he proved that, according to the usual practice of his house, the luggage would have been deposited in the guest's bedroom, and not in the commercial room, if no order had been given respecting it, [S. C. 2 Man. & Ey. 235 ; 6 L. J, K. B. 0. S. 279. Dictum commented on, Morgan v. Bavey, 1861, 6 H. & N. 272.] Case on the custom of the realm against the defendant, an inn-keeper, for the loss of certain goods which the plaintiff, a guest, had carried with him to the defendant's inn. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Alexander C.B. at the last Spring Assizes for Nottingham, it appeared that the plaintiff went by a stage-coach from London to the defendant's inn at Nottingham, having with him several packages. Some of them were taken up stairs to his bed-room, but one package, at his desire, was carried into the commercial room, into which he was shewn. It was the usual practice at that inn to take all the luggage of the guests into their bed-rooms, unless orders to the contrary were given. The package taken into the commercial room contained silks of various kinds, and on the day after the plaintiff's arrival at Nottingham he took it out, to exhibit his goods to different customers : some were sold, and the package was taken back to the commercial room, from which it was afterwards stolen. For the defendant it was conte.nded that the plaintiff by ordering the goods to be taken into the commercial room took them under his own protection, and therefore could not make the inn-keeper responsible for the [10] loss. The Lord Chief Baron told the jury that the defendant was in the situation of a carrier, and could not get rid of his common-law liability unless by giving an express notice; and under that direction they found a verdict for the plaintiff. Clarke now moved for a new trial, and contended that the Lord Chief Baron mis-directed the jury in stating that the defendant could only get rid of his liability by express notice. In Burgess v. Clements (4 M. & S. 306), it was held that a guest who desired to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cashill against Wright
...negligence conducing to the loss the innkeeper is exonerated : were that so, there would have been a misdirection in Richmond v. Smith (8 B. & C. 9). The Recorder appears to have adopted the language which is to be found in 2 Saunders On Pleading and Evidence, 215 (2d ed., by Lush). In Bats......
-
Jones against Tyler
...the property in the character of an innkeeper: Burgess v. Clements (a), Farnworth v. Packwood (1 Stark. N. P. 0. 249), Richmond v. Smith (8 B. & C. 9). There can be no doubt, upon the facts of this case, that the defendant, by his servant, took charge of the gig in the character of an innke......
-
Dawson against Chamney
...of the wound; must the innkeeper make that [167] good?] That would be an injury resulting from the act of God, In Richmond v. Smith (8 B. & C. 9), it was decided that an innkeeper is liable for goods lost in his inn, from a room in which the owner of the goods has directed them to be placed......
- Gee, Walker & Slater, Ltd v Friary Hotel (Derby)Ltd