Case Name: KENSINGTON HOTEL v. WEINMAN
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1923-11-05
Citations: 1 Ohio Law Abs. 817
Docket Number: No. 4626
Parties: KENSINGTON HOTEL v. WEINMAN
Judges: 
Reporter: The Ohio Law Abstract
Volume: 1
Pages: 817–817

Head Matter:
No. 847
KENSINGTON HOTEL v. WEINMAN
Ohio Appeals, 9th District, Cuyahoga County
No. 4626.
Decided Nov. 5, 1923
207. INNKEEPERS.
Loss of clothing from room, by a guest, not necessary to show negligence by keeper-Keeping trans-nor staying over a day, after boarding a week, ying a day's rate, still a guest.
Attorneys-J. S. Pressman, for Hotel; Townes & ortman, for Weinman.

Opinion:
VICKERY, P. J.
Epitomized Opinion
Petition in error from Cleveland Municipal Court The record shows that the Hotel advertised as such, and that Weinman, having seen the advertisement, went there and registered, and paid for his accommodation a week in advance. The Hotel claimed that it was not a hotel, and that the relation ~f innkeeper and guest did not arise. Weinman's ~lothing was taken from his room, `and he brought he action to recover for their loss.
The record showed that he paid in advance, $10 or a week's accommodation, and then paid at the ~ate of a transient, $1.50 for one day.
Weinman admitted that there was no negligence, nd that if the relation of innkeeper and guest ex-sted between them, it was not necessary to show igence, and he would be entitled to recover. ourt of Appeals, in affirming the judgment of h trial court, held:
Bècaus~ the hotel received transients as well as oarders, and the mnre fact that Weinman stayed a veek and paid a week's rate in advance, did not, any he less, make him a guest of the hotel. As there vas enough in the record to show that the relation f hotel keeper and guest existed between the par-ies, the judgment in favor of Weinmar~ must be ffirmed.