Court Opinion

ID: 5420770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-08 16:28:05.642851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:31:13.553916
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs were not transient persons within the meaning of the common-law rule which makes the innkeeper an insurer of the property of his guests. (Hancock v. Rand, 94 N. Y. 1; Crapo v. Rockwell, 48 Misc. 1.) Whether the defendant hotel is liable for the value of the stolen property on the ground of negligence is not before us.
Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellants to abide the event.
All concur; present, Delehanty, Lydon and Crain, JJ.