R. Vashon Rogers

“ Quite excusable, sir, for I am only speaking in the cause of right, and because I think some judges are inclined to cut loose from the safe moorings of the old common law, rendered dear to us by the adjudications of the learned men of the Bench for generations past, both in the old and new worlds; and I am satisfied that a contrary doctrine will be terrible in its effects in this great commercial community of ours, where our business men spend so large a portion of their time at inns in pursuit of their calling. ”

“ Judge Sanderson remarked that in times of political excitement persons might be provoked to make wagers which they might regret in their cooler moments. No obstacles, he thought, should be thrown in the way of their repentance, and if they retracted before the bet has been decided, their money ought to be returned; but those who allow their stakes to remain until after the wager has been decided and the result known, are entitled to no such consideration; their tears, if any, are not repentant tears, but such as crocodiles shed over the victims they are about to devour. ”

“ Judge Wightman could not see that a boarding-house keeper is a bailee of the goods of his guest at all, or that he is bound to take more care of them (when they are no further given into his care than by being in his house) than he as a prudent man would take of his own. If he were guilty of negligence in the selection of his servants, or in keeping such as he might well distrust, his lordship said that he could hardly be considered as taking the care of a prudent owner, and so might be liable for a loss occasioned by a servant’s neglect. ”

“ One of my Lords said that he agreed in the opinion that there is no obligation on a guest at an inn to lock his bedroom door; but the fact of the guest having the means of securing himself and choosing not to use them is one which, with the other circumstances of the case, should be left to the jury. The weight of it must, of course, depend upon the state of society at the time and place; what would be prudent at a small hotel in a small town might be the extreme of imprudence at a large hotel in a city like Bristol, where probably three hundred bedrooms were occupied by people of all sorts. ”

“ The Chief Baron said that if an innkeeper had a right to detain a guest for the non-payment of his bill, he had a right to detain him until the bill was paid, which might be for years or might be for aye; so that by the common law, a man who owed a small debt, for which he could not be imprisoned by legal process, might yet be detained by an innkeeper for life. Such a proposition my Lord Chief Baron said was monstrous, and, according to my lord Baron Parke, was startling. ”

“ There is no implied contract that one to whom a particular room has been given shall retain it so long as he chooses to pay for it. [75] You pay your money, but you don’t take your choice.”
“But I liked the room so much,” said Mr. Complaining Grumbler.
“It matters not. The proprietor is not bound to comply with your caprices. [76] When you go to an hotel you have only a mere easement of sleeping in one room, and eating and drinking in another, as Judge Maule once remarked.” ”

“ On the same occasion on which Judge Manisty expressed his views, Kelly, C. B., remarked that he would not lay down the rule positively that under no circumstances would a guest have a right to bring a dog into an inn; there might possibly, he observed, be circumstances in which, if a person came to an inn with a dog, and the innkeeper refused to put up the animal in any stable or outbuilding, and there was nothing that could make the canine a cause of alarm or an annoyance to others, its owner might be justified in bringing it into the house. ”

“ A foolish young couple live up stairs, and their first baby is teething or something of the sort, and whines and howls incessantly, so the mother by day and the father by night continually trundle it up and down the room in a parlor baby-carriage, making such a noise that I can neither read nor sleep. It is a regular nuisance, and I’ll have it stopped. ”

“ MORE ABOUT BOARDING-HOUSE KEEPERS.
Again it was night. All the boarders were assembled around the tea-table; not exactly, however, as Dr. Talmage would wish, for he said that you should be seated wide enough apart to have room to take out your handkerchief if you want to cry at any pitiful story, or to spread yourself in laughter if someone propound an irresistible conundrum. ”

“ The Supreme Court of Tennessee decided that an innkeeper was not liable for the clothing of a boarder stolen from his room, without the former’s fault, although he would be for that of a guest; [393] and the judge gave as his reason for making the distinction that a passenger or wayfaring man may be an entire stranger in the place, and must put up and lodge at the inn to which his day’s journey may bring him, and so it is important that he should be protected by the most stringent{161} rules of law enforcing the liability of hotel-keepers ”

“ In England, an innkeeper, if he cause at least one copy of the law, (printed in plain type,) to be exhibited in a conspicuous part of the hall or entrance to his inn, will not be liable to make good any loss of or injury to goods or property brought to the inn, to a greater extent than £30, (unless it be a horse or other animal, or any gear appertaining thereto, or any carriage) except when such goods have been stolen, lost, or injured, through the willful act, default, or neglect of the publican, or any servant in his employ ”

“ At the table we were joined by an acquaintance, who informed me that he had great difficulty in obtaining admission to the house, as the innkeeper had a grudge against him.
“No matter what personal objection a host may have, he cannot refuse to receive a guest. Every one who opens an inn by the wayside, and professes to exercise the business and employment of a common innkeeper, is bound to afford such shelter and accommodation as he possesses to all travelers who apply therefor, and tender, or are able to pay, the customary charges,” [7] I remarked. ”

“ Long since, it was laid down as law that if one comes to an inn with a hamper, in which he has goods, and goes away, leaving it with the host, and in a few days comes back, but in the meantime his goods are stolen, he has no action against the host, for at the time of stealing he was not his guest, and by keeping the hamper the innkeeper had no benefit, and therefore is not chargeable with the loss of it. ”

“ Then, sir, our great Chancellor Kent lays it down as admitting of no peradventure, that an innkeeper is bound absolutely to keep safe the property of his guest within the inn, whether he knows of it or not, and that his responsibility extends to all his guest’s servants, and to all the goods, chattels, and moneys of the guest, their safe custody being part of the contract to feed and lodge for a suitable reward. ”

“ Lawyer.
“No,” I replied, “I am more afraid of my overcoat. Although not very new, it is still serviceable.”
“Well, sir,” said a youthful reader of Blackstone and Story, “if any one feloniously and wickedly takes away your bad habit could you not deduct the value of it on your next week’s settlement with Mrs. Dee? An innkeeper would be liable in such a case.”
“My dear young friend,” I replied, “you have as yet acquired only the A B C of professional knowledge. The liability of a boarding-house keeper for the goods of a boarder is by no means the same as that of an innkeeper.” ”

“ Another of the judges said that he had always understood the law to be that the clothes on the person of a man, and in his possession at the time, are not to be considered as goods to which the right of lien can properly apply; that the consequence of holding otherwise might be to subject parties to disgrace and duress in order to compel them to pay a trifling debt which, after all, was not due, and which the innkeeper had no pretence for demanding.”
“But, my dear fellow, we were speaking of the right of a landlord to keep the body of his guest.” ”

“ In that State they have a law exempting landlords from liability for the loss by fire of a guest’s goods in a barn or outhouse, if it is shown that the damage is the work of an incendiary, and occurred without negligence on their part; but the burden of proving this is, of course, upon the innkeeper, [270] and my own humble opinion is that an innkeeper is liable for all such losses unless they are caused by a public enemy, or an act of God, (lightning,{104} or an earthquake) or the owner has been negligent. ”

“ The poor landlord looked at me with such a despairing glance—a look of a dying duck in a thunder-storm—that I could scarce restrain my risible faculties as I remarked:
“I am afraid your adversary is correct, and not even if a horse were to eat its head off could you sell it, unless you chanced to live in London or{131} Exeter. Your only remedy would be to sue for the price of the food, get judgment, and then sell. [341] You cannot sell a right of lien, or transfer the property, without losing your right and rendering yourself liable to an action. One must proceed by suit.” ”

“ Well, sir, I do not like to speak dogmatically, but it seems that the tendency of some modern decisions is to hold that the innkeeper should not be liable for any money beyond that amount, even though put in a safe, unless a special contract has been made, or it has been actually delivered to the proprietor or his servant, with notice not only of the kind of property it was, but also of the amount. ”

“ It seems to me to be somewhat absurd that{95} the law should say that unless you deposit your money in the hotel safe the proprietor will not be liable for its loss, and then when you have placed it in the absolute and immediate control of the innkeeper, and, perhaps, his dishonest servant, you should be met the next day, when asking for your own, by the smirking and bowing proprietor, remarking, suaviter in modo: ‘True, sir you gave me twenty thousand dollars for safe-keeping, and I put it in my safe; but, like all riches, it has taken to itself wings and flown away. ”

“ I hastened to reply, “if you will so accept it.”
“Then I would ask,” continued my interrogator, “must a man be a certain length of time at an hotel before he is entitled to the privileges of a guest?”
“Oh, dear, no! Merely purchasing temporary refreshment at an inn makes the purchaser a guest and renders the innkeeper liable for the safety of the goods he may have with him, [121] if he is a traveler.”
“But who is a traveler?”
“One who is absent from his home, whether on pleasure or business. [122] A townsman or neighbor, who is actually traveling, may be a guest. ”

“ If you are not satisfied with the words of these men—alike the pride and the ornament of America—let us cross the ocean and hear what Sir Wm. Blackstone saith; he speaketh after this wise: that an innkeeper’s negligence in suffering a robbery of his guest is an implied consent to the robbery, and he must make good the loss. ”

“ It was considered that a visitor in a house was in the same position as any other member of the establishment, so far as regards the negligence of the master or his servants, and must take his chance of accidents with the rest. [72] Baron Bramwell, however, well said that where a person is in the house of another, either on business or for any other lawful purpose, he has a right to expect that the owner will take reasonable care to protect him from injury, and will not leave trap-doors open down which he might fall, or take him into a garden among spring-guns and man-traps. ”

“ I made answer; “for an innkeeper is bound to receive a horse, even though the owner chooses to go elsewhere. [318] And it is clearly settled that in the eyes of the law a man becomes a guest at a place of public entertainment by having his horse there, though he himself neither lodges nor takes refreshments there.” [319]
“But I thought that an innkeeper was not bound to take the goods of a man who merely wishes to use the house as a place of deposit; [320] nor liable for things so left there, except as an ordinary bailee.” ”