DocketNumber: No. 8897
Citation Numbers: 64 Colo. 226
Judges: Hill
Filed Date: 1/15/1918
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/20/2022
delivered the opinion of the court:
This action in replevin was instituted in a justice’s court The plaintiff in error (hereafter called the plaintiff), sought possession of two trunks containing wearing apparel, one hat box with hat, two cases with surgical instruments and medicines, and one box of books, which were held by the defendant for the payment of room rent, for which she claimed a lien thereon by authority of section 4013, Rev.
It is claimed that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. Scanlon v. LaCoste, 59 Colo. 499. 149 Pac. 835, L. R. A. 1915 F, 664 Ann. Cas,, 1917 A, 254, is relied on as sustaining this contention. The ruling there is to the effect that where the owner of an apartment house rents an apartment, though' furnished, for housekeeping purposes, and which is occupied as a home, that he is not entitled to a lien under section 4013, supra. The facts here do not fit that case, but present a condition which places it upon the border line. The record discloses that the defendant was not the possessor of an apartment house, as that term is generally understood, but to the contrary was in possession of the second story of a business building, -with business places below, and seven rooms and a bath above; that these rooms were furnished by defendant; That she had a sign “furnished rooms” displayed; that. she had posted in each of the rooms occupied by the plaintiff and her family, the statutory notice required to take advantage of the hotel and boarding housekeepers’ act, etc.; that prior to her occupancy it had been run by others as a rooming house, once known as The Trumble Booming House, once as The Goodman Booming House, and that defendant’s predecessors, as well as defendant, had for a long time run the place as a rooming house, viz, rented furnished rooms by day, week or month; that the plaintiff’s husband rented, and with her and their two children, occupied, what was called two front rooms which faced out on the street, and one side room, so-called; that one of these rooms was furnished with a folding bed, dresser and washstand, another with a couch, dresser, stove, stand-table, and wardrobe, and the other with a folding bed, wash-stand, small table, stove and cupboard; all had carpets, window curtains, blinds, etc., furnished by defendant. The plaintiff furnished no furniture, the defendant furnished the coal and kindling for the stoves, also the lights and tele
“The relation * * * depends upon the contract of hiring, gathered from its terms and interpreted in the light of the surrounding circumstances, having in end, the finding of the intention of the parties to the contract. * * * It is a mixed question of law and fact.”
This conclusion appears to be supported by the weight of authority and when the facts above outlined are considered, we cannot subscribe to the contention that there is no competent testimony upon which the finding can be sustained, for which reason the. judgment will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Decision en banc.