Case Name: The Central District of the Christian Missionary Alliance v. Merrill
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1917-06-25
Citations: 31 Ohio C.A. 417
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Central District of the Christian Missionary Alliance v. Merrill.
Judges: Grant and Carpenter, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
AS TO WHETHER A HOUSE WHERE GUESTS ARE ENTERTAINED IS A PUBLIC INN.
Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
The Central District of the Christian Missionary Alliance v. Merrill.
Decided June 25, 1917.
Inkeepers — Liability of for Valuables of Guests — Determination as to Whether a House Receiving Guests for Hire is an Inn — Maintainanee of Safe for Valuables — Section 59'81.
1. Whether a house where a guest is entertained is a public inn or a private house, is a question of fact.
2. An establishment maintained by a Missionary Alliance, which consists of thirty rooms, to which reputable persons are admitted for hire, whether they be members of the association or not, and where they may obtain board for a day, week or month and where a register is kept, is a hotel, and said Alliance is liable to a guest for goods lost where it has not complied with the provisions of Section 5981, General Code, by maintaining a safe for the reception of valuables or by posting the required notice in the rooms.
Carver & Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
I. N. Loeser, for defendant in error.
Heard on error.

Opinion:
Lieghley, J.
The parties were in reverse order below and will be so mentioned here.
Tbe defendant maintains an establishment at Beulah Park, consisting of thirty rooms, to which reputable persons are admitted for hire, whether they be members of the Alliance or not The proof tends to show that an applicant may obtain board for a day, a week, or a month; that a register is kept; that there is no sign on the building; that on August 1, 1916, the plaintiff, a non-member, was received as a boarder or guest; and that on August 26, 1916, while she was absent from her room, jewelry and valuables were stolen therefrom by some intruder breaking the lock on the door. It is not claimed by the defendant that it complied with Section 5981, General Code, by maintaining a safe for the reception of valuables, or that notices were posed in the rooms as per said section.
The plaintiff filed her statement of claim in the municipal court to recover from defendant tlie value of the goods stolen. A trial thereof resulted in a judgment for plaintiff, to reverse which judgment error is prosecuted to this court.
In the trial of the case below the defendant claimed that it maintained a boarding house only. The plaintiff calimed that the defendant at the time maintained a hotel. The trial of the case involved principally a determination of the question of whether or not the defendant kept a boarding house or was an innkeeper. From the proof we are not inclined to say that the trial court was wrong. The question whether a house where a guest is entertained is a public inn or a private house, is a question of fact. (Beale on Innkeepers and Hotels, Sections 13 and 14). For authority as to who is a guest, see Arcade Hotel Co. v. Wiatt, 44 Ohio St., 32.
The position maintained by the defendant having been determined to be wrong, the defendant became responsible for the safety of the personal possessions of the plaintiff left by her in her room while a guest of said hotel in the absence of any substantial or proyen claim of negligence on her part. Fuller v. Coats et al, 18 Ohio St., 343, and Palace Hotel Co. v. Medart, 87 Ohio St., 130.
Judgment affirmed.
Grant and Carpenter, JJ., concur.