
    David Sneider against William Geiss.
    
      Qucere. If in a suit against an innkeeper for money lost in his house, the plaintiff may not by his own oath, prove the contents of a hag delivered to he kept for him? An innkeeper is liable for whatever is deposited in his house ; hut if the trust is reposed in another person, then the case is taken out of the general rule.
    Suit against the defendant as an innkeeper, for 230 Spanish milled dollars, on the custom of the country. The narr also contained a count in trover, for the money..
    It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff usually lodged at defendant’s inn in Philadelphia, and had several times before delivered parcels of money to Elizabeth Geltner, his stepdaughter, to be taken care of for him. She was in the house as a relation, and occasionally assisted in the business of the family, though she was not in the bar or in the capacity of a servant.
    
      Approved in 62 Pa., 96, -where the court said, “But though an innkeeper is liable, on grounds of the soundest policy and public convenience, for whatever is deposited in his house by a guest, he is not responsible for the loss or embezzlement of his guest’s money, where he does not deposit it on the security of the inn, but intrusts it to another guest or inmate for safe keeping, in whom he reposes his trust and confidence ”
    The money declared for was delivered in bag to her by the plaintiff, and carried up stairs into the defendant’s bedchamber, when he was present at a desk examining some papers. She said, on putting the bag down, ‘ ‘ this is Sneider’s money, ’ ’ but he neither spoke, turned round, nor looked at her. It'appeared, however, that he afterwards noticed the bag. Defendant afterwards left his house, and after his going, the said Elizabeth saw the bag lying on the table in his chamber, which was missed before defendant came home. It was shewn in testimony, that the plaintiff had been in particular habits of intimacy with the said Elizabeth Geltner, and actually courted her at that time in marriage.
    To prove the contents of the bag, the plaintiff was offered to give testimony of this fact simply, on the authority of the case in 12 Vin. 24. Party allowed to prove the contents of a box delivered to a carrier; and 12 Vin. 25. The court strongly inclined to receive the plaintiff to this single point, from the necessity of the case, but gave no public opinion thereon; as the defendant’s counsel admitted the contents of the bag, and superseded the necessity of the plaintiff being sworn.
    It was contended on the part of the defendant, that he was not liable for this money, it not having been delivered into his actual custody, and cited Bull. 73. 8 Co. 32.”
    Eor the plaintiff were cited Cro. El. 622. 2 Espinasse 407, 367-
    Messrs. Sergeant and Ingersol, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Lewis and Rawle, pro def.
    
   *By THE Court.

There is no evidence of a conversion, pgg *- which is the gist of an action of trover; so that on that count the plaintiff must fail. But whether the defendant is chargeable on the general custom as an innkeeper, is the question. On principles of law, an innkeeper is liable for whatever is deposited in his house, and this on grounds of the soundest policy and public convenience. But the true point in the case is, whether the plaintiff did not repose his trust and confidence in Elizabeth Geltner, whom he was courting, and to whom he had always heretofore trusted his money for safe keeping. If the jury are satisfied that he did, then the case is taken out of the general rule, as 'he did not rest on the security of the inn: if otherwise, the verdict should be for the plaintiff.

Verdict for defendant.  