LAZARE KAPLAN & SONS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
PENSACOLA HOTEL COMPANY, APPELLEE; S. LESSE & SONS, INC., APPELLANT, V. PENSACOLA HOTEL COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim against the innkeeper under Florida Statutes governing innkeeper liability.
Plaintiffs sued an innkeeper for the value of lost property while they were paying guests. The district court dismissed their claims.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
These two appeals consolidated for submission here are from orders granting defendant’s motions to dismiss the action in each case because, under the Florida Statutes governing the liability of innkeepers, F.S.A. § 509.111, the complaint failed to state a claim against it.
Each suit was brought against defendant to recover the value of jewels and other property which each plaintiff claimed he had lost while a paying guest in the hotel.
The district judge, in a decision and opinion,1 carefully summing up the case as made on the pleadings, setting out and discussing the applicable Florida Statutes, and specifically rejecting plaintiff’s contention that the 1947 Amendment to the Florida Statute since those cases were decided, had not effected any change in the law, held that the cases were controlled by the decisions of this court in Ely v. Charellen Corp., 5 Cir., 120 F. 2d 984 and Dick-Cleland v. 800 Washington Ave., Inc., 5 Cir., 143 F. 2d 238.
Insisting that the district judge was wrong in denying the effect claimed for that amendment, appellants are here urging upon us that the judgment was wrong and must be reversed.
We do not think so. On the considerations and for the reasons stated in the thorough opinion of the district judge, the judgments are affirmed.
. Published in 153 F.Supp. 31.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cole v. Carmell, 112 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
-
Kalpakian v. Okla. Sheraton Corp., 398 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1968)
Authorities Cited
- ELY v. Charellen Corp., 120 F.2d 984 (5th Cir. 1941)
- Dick-Cleland v. 800 Wash. AVE., Inc., 143 F.2d 238 (5th Cir. 1944)