Case Name: Herman Roeckers v. Joseph Hart
Court: Hamilton County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1908-04
Citations: 11 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: Herman Roeckers v. Joseph Hart.
Judges: Giepen, J.; Swing, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Court Reports (new series)
Volume: 11
Pages: 380–381

Head Matter:
LIABILITY FOR. SAFETY OF MONEY DEPOSITED BY A GUEST.
Circuit Court of Hamilton County.
Herman Roeckers v. Joseph Hart.
Decided, April, 1908.
Where one who pays a stipulated amount for his board and lodging deposits a sum of money with his landlord for safekeeping, the latter is liable for the money so taken, whether he be regarded as an inn-keeper or a boarding house keeper.
Wm. G. McLean, for plaintiff in error.
W. A. Bmckhoff, contra.
Giepen, J.; Swing, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.
Affirming Hart v. Roeckers, 7 N. P.—N. S., 395, which see for statement of the ease.

Opinion:
The defendant in error paid the plaintiff in error a stipulated sum of money for his board and lodging, and the latter agreed to safely keep over night the sum .of $152, belonging to the former. The next morning the plaintiff in error gave the money to his servant for redelivery to the defendant in error, but the servant appropriated the same to his own use.
The plaintiff in error was liable for the money so taken, whether he be regarded as an innkeeper or a boarding house keeper. The defendant in error was his guest in either event (Beale on Innkeepers & Hotels, Sections 188 and 293).
AVhile it is true that the defendant in error testified that he had no home except at Rockers (plaintiff in error), yet he explained his meaning in his redirect examination by saying, "I consider that my home wherever I pay my bills for my board."
What he meant, and what the jury evidently understood was, that he had no permanent home, and that wherever he stopped for board and lodging, no. matter for how short a time, that place he regarded as his temporary home. In other words, he was a transient person or guest, and recognized as such by the plaintiff in error, who was accustomed to receiving such guests. Hancock v. Rand, 94 N. Y., 1.