Reasonable Regulations of the Innkeeper

To enable the innkeeper duly to discharge his duty to the public and to safeguard the goods of the traveler from loss, while in a house ever open to the public, it may become necessary for the innkeeper to provide special means, and to make necessary regulations and requirements to be observed by the guest. When such means are proper and such regulations are reasonable, and when they are brought to the actual notice of the guest, the innkeeper will not be responsible for any loss due to a failure on the part of a guest to comply with such regulations.51

52

53

It should be noted that the innkeeper cannot reduce his responsibility simply by a regulation to that effect, though he may require certain conduct on the part of the guest with a penalty of exemption of the innkeeper from liability for loss resulting from the guest's failure to conduct himself as directed. The validity of the regulation is first dependent upon its reasonableness, and next, to be binding on a particular guest, it must be brought to his notice." Thus a regulation requiring guests to deposit clothing at the office would be clearly unreasonable." Posting the notice in the guest's room, on the question of bringing the notice to the attention of the guest, is not conclusive. Such notices, too, are to be construed strictly against the innkeeper."

56

The particular regulation most frequently before the courts requires that property of small bulk and great value be left at the office of the inn for deposit in the safe." In most states statutes have been passed (which will subsequently be discussed) imposing this same duty on the guest."9

51 Fuller v. Coats, 18 Ohio St. 343; Purvis v. Coleman, 21 N. Y. 111; Berkshire Woollen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 417; Cashill v. Wright, 6 El. & Bl. (Eng.) 891.

52 Stanton v. Leland, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 88.

53 Fuller v. Coats, 18 Ohio St. 343; Watson v. Loughran, 112 Ga. 837, 88 S. E. 82.

54 Van Wyck v. Howard, 12 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 147.

55 Stanton v. Leland, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 88.

56 Bodwell v. Bragg, 29 Iowa, 232.

67 Pope v. Hall, 14 La. Ann. 324; Milford v. Wesley, Wils. (Ind.) 119; Brown Hotel Co. v. Burckhardt, 13 Colo. App. 59, 56 Pac. 188.

58 Fuller v. Coats, 18 Ohio St. 343; Stanton v. Leland, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 88; Profilet v. Hall, 14 La. Ann. 524; Milford v. Wesley, 2 Wils. (Ind.) 119.

69 Post, § 98.

DOB.BAILM.-18

SAME-SAME-TO WHAT GOODS THE INNKEEPER'S

LIABILITY EXTENDS

97. The innkeeper's liability as such extends to all the goods of the guest brought within the inn, exceptEXCEPTIONS: (a) Goods for show or for sale.

Goods of Guests Only

(b) Goods retained in the exclusive custody of the guest.

Innkeepers are liable as such for goods deposited with them only by guests of their inns. The keeper of an inn may, of course, incur a liability as bailee for the safe-keeping of goods which he has voluntarily undertaken to keep for others than guests, and the extent of this liability is subsequently considered. The exceptional liability, however, imposed by law on the innkeeper, is limited to the goods of those who are technically guests. It is sufficient, though, if the guest have a special property, or even a possessory interest, in the goods, such as that of a bailee or an agent. He need not be the owner of the goods to impose the exceptional responsibility on the innkeeper.62

More Than is Necessary for Traveling

The liability of an innkeeper for a loss by his guest ordinarily extends to all the movable goods and money which are placed

60 In Tulane Hotel Co. v. Holohan, 112 Tenn. 214, 79 S. W. 113, 105 Am. St. Rep. 930, 2 Ann. Cas. 345, where the goods were received on the presumption that one would become a guest, but he did not, it was held that the technical innkeeping responsibility did not arise. See, also, Strauss v. County Hotel Co., 12 Q. B. D. (Eng.) 27; Miles v. International Hotel Co., 167 Ill. App. 440; Towson v. Havre de Grace Bank, 6 Har. & J. (Md.) 47, 14 Am. Dec. 254; McDaniels v. Robinson, 28 Vt. 387, 67 Am. Dec. 720; Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 485, 38 Am. Dec. 663. If a servant is robbed of his master's money or goods while a guest at an inn, the master may maintain an action against the innkeeper. Towson v. Havre de Grace Bank, supra. This principle applies to one who hires a horse and chaise from the owner, and intrusts them to an innkeeper. Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 280, 20 Am. Dec. 471. A guest who is a mere depositary of the goods he brings with him may maintain an action against the innkeeper for their loss. Kellogg v. Sweeney, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 397. Plaintiff's stallion stood at defendant's inn certain days each week, under an agreement, made for the season, for serving mares. Plaintiff had the key to the stall, and fed and cared for the horse. Defendant furnished the oats for the horse, and meals for the plaintiff, at a price less than the ordinary rates to travelers. Held, that defendant's custody was not that of innkeeper, and that, therefore, he was not liable for the destruction of the barn and horse by fire without negligence on his part. Mowers v. Fethers, 61 N. Y. 34, 19 Am. Rep. 244,

61 See post, § 103.

62 Kellogg v. Sweeney, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 397.

68

64

within the inn. It is sometimes claimed that an innkeeper is liable only for such an amount of money as is necessary for the reasonable expenses of the guest, and for such goods as are necessary for the journey in question. This distinction is sought to be maintained upon the analogy to the case of a carrier of passengers, who is liable only for money or articles convenient to the traveler on his journey as these alone come within the technical definition of baggage, and not for goods or merchandise, as such. A brief consideration of the nature of the passenger's baggage, the methods of handling it on fast trains, and its relation to freight, will show that the analogy is not a happy one. Accordingly this contention is not supported by the cases, and innkeepers have frequently been held liable both for goods and money, which could not be included within the technical definition of baggage."

65

But as to the amount of goods or money for which an innkeeper may be held liable, it would seem that, though this is not confined to baggage, there must be some limit, and that the innkeeper cannot be held liable as such for any very extraordinary amount of goods or any extremely unusual sum of money that the guest may see fit to bring to the inn. It is not clear just what such limit would be, but this would probably be governed by consider

68 Smith v. Wilson, 36 Minn. 334, 31 N. W. 176, 1 Am. St. Rep. 669; Eden v. Drey, 75 Ill. App. 102; Berkshire Woollen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 417; Towson v. Havre de Grace Bank, 6 Har. & J. (Md.) 47, 14 Am. Dec. 254; Wilkins v. Earle, 44 N. Y. 172, 4 Am. Rep. 655; Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 302, 305, 63 Am. Dec. 369. Cf. Simon v. Miller, 7 La. Ann. 360; Weisenger v. Taylor, 1 Bush (Ky.) 275, 89 Am. Dec. 626. But it is otherwise by statute in Maine. See Noble v. Milliken, 74 Me. 225, 43 Am. Rep. 581.

64 This limitation is held proper in the following cases: Profilet v. Hall, 14 La. Ann. 524; Treiber v. Burrows, 27 Md. 130; Pettigrew v. Barnum, 11 Md. 434, 69 Am. Dec. 212; Sasseen v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242.

65 See post, § 197.

66 Eden v. Drey, 75 Ill. App. 102; Taylor v. Monnot, 4 Duer (N. Y.) 116; Kellogg v. Sweeney, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 397; Wilkins v. Earle, 44 N. Y. 172, 4 Am. Rep. 655; Needles v. Howard, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 54; Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557, 91 Am. Dec. 657; Berkshire Woollen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 417; Rubenstein v. Cruikshanks, 54 Mich. 199, 19 N. W. 954, 52 Am. Rep. 806; Smith v. Wilson, 36 Minn. 334, 31 N. W. 176, 1 Am. St. Rep. 669; Quinton v. Courtney, 2 N. C. 40; Sasseen v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242; Kent v. Shuckard, 2 Barn. & Adol. (Eng.) 803; Armistead v. White, 6 Eng. Law & Eq. 349. In Clute v. Wiggins, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 175, 7 Am. Dec. 448, the guest recovered for certain bags of wheat and barley. In Piper v. Manny, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 282, the recovery was for a tub of butter. In Sneider v. Geiss, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 34, the innkeeper was held liable for 230 Spanish milled dollars. In Hulett v. Swift, 33 N. Y. 571, 88 Am. Dec. 405, the plaintiff recovered the value of his horses, wagon, and a load of buckskin goods.

ations of practical common sense, and would be a question for the jury under proper instructions from the court." Goods Arriving Before or After the Guest

68

If the innkeeping relation be actually established, the high responsibility of the innkeeper is the same, whether the goods be in the possession of the guest when he arrives at the inn, whether the property be conveyed to the inn before his arrival, or at a subsequent time during his stay at the inn. Indeed, the same responsibility attaches to the innkeeper, even if the guest did not own the goods when he arrived, but purchased them and had them sent to the inn after his arrival. Provided the goods are brought to the inn, or accepted outside the inn, by the innkeeper or his servants, as the goods of a guest, the innkeeper's unusual liability is in no way affected by the relation in time which the arrival of the goods bears to the arrival of the guest. Of course, this particular responsibility continues only so long as the relation of innkeeper and guest actually exists. Goods Received within the Inn

The liability of the innkeeper does not attach, unless the goods are brought within the inn (infra hospitium), or otherwise placed within his control or custody." It is not necessary, though, that the goods should be placed in his special keeping; but it is sufficient if they are properly deposited in the inn or intrusted to the care of his servants. The innkeeper's liability, however, extends to goods in all parts of the inn, and even to the outbuildings connected with the inn."1

67 Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221, 52 Am. Dec. 303.

68 Flint v. Illinois Hotel Co., 149 Ill. App. 404; Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557, 91 Am. Dec. 657; Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221, 52 Am. Dec. 303. But see Tulane Hotel Co. v. Holohan, 112 Tenn. 214, 79 S. W. 113, 105 Am. St. Rep. 930, 2 Ann. Cas. 345, where the owner sent the goods to the inn, but did not himself go to the inn.

69 Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 280, 20 Am. Dec. 471; Piper v. Manny, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 282; Albin v. Presby, 8 N. H. 408, 29 Am. Dec. 679; Minor v. Staples, 71 Me. 316, 36 Am. Rep. 318; Norcross v. Norcross, 53 Me. 163; Bennet v. Mellor, 5 Term R. (Eng.) 273; Kent v. Shuckard, 2 Barn. & Adol. (Eng.) 803; Vance v. Throckmorton, 5 Bush (Ky.) 41, 96 Am. Dec. 327; Windham v. Mead, 4 Leon. (Eng.) 96; Hawley v. Smith, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 642; Maloney v. Bacon, 33 Mo. App. 501.

70 Labold v. Southern Hotel Co., 54 Mo. App. 567; Curtis v. Murphy, 63 Wis. 4, 22 N. W. 825, 53 Am. Rep. 242; 2 Kent, Comm. 593; Story, Bailm. § 479; McDonald v. Edgerton, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 560; Rockwell v. Proctor, 39 Ga. 105.

71 Albin v. Presby, 8 N. H. 408, 410, 29 Am. Dec. 679; Burrows v. Trieber, 21 Md. 320, 83 Am. Dec. 590; McDonald v. Edgerton, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 560⚫ Bennet v. Mellor, 5 Term R. (Eng.) 273; Richmond v. Smith, 8 Barn. & C.

When the goods of the guest come into the control of the innkeeper or his servants outside the inn, his high responsibility begins immediately upon such control, even before the goods reach the inn. Thus, as we have seen, when the innkeeper sends his porter to the station to receive the baggage of travelers, the innkeeping liability dates from such delivery to the porter." If the goods are once intrusted to the innkeeper or his servants, or properly deposited within the inn, the innkeeper, of course, remains liable as such, if, on his own initiative, the goods are kept outside the inn.73 A different result would follow, though, if the goods were put outside the inn, either by the guest himself or by virtue of his instructions.74

An innkeeper who also keeps a sea-bathing house, separate from the inn, is not liable as an innkeeper for goods and clothes of his guests, left there while the guests were bathing; 75 but he is in such

(Eng.) 9. But see Sanders v. Spencer, 3 Dyer (Eng.) 266b. In Clute v. Wiggins, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 175, 7 Am. Dec. 448, the guest put his sleigh, loaded with wheat, into an outhouse appurtenant to the inn, where loads of the kind were usually received, but without specially committing it to the innkeeper. The grain was stolen in the night, and the innkeeper was held liable for the loss. It would be otherwise if a traveler, on arriving at an inn, should place his loaded wagon under an open shed, not appurtenant to the inn, and near the highway, and make no request to the innkeeper to take it into his custody. 72 Ante, p. -; Sasseen v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242; Dickinson v. Winchester, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 114, 50 Am. Dec. 760. An innkeeper employing a transportation company to furnish an omnibus and wagon to receive guests of the hotel at a railway depot, and to transport them and their baggage to the hotel, is liable if the baggage of a guest delivered to such company is by it lost before reaching the hotel. Coskery v. Nagle, 83 Ga. 696, 10 S. E. 491, 6 L. R. A. 483, 20 Am. St. Rep. 333.

78 Piper v. Manny, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 282; Cohen v. Manuel, 91 Me. 274, 39 Atl. 1030, 40 L. R. A. 491, 64 Am. St. Rep. 225. An innkeeper is responsible for the safe-keeping of a load of goods belonging to a traveler who stops at his inn for the night, if the carriage containing the goods be deposited in a place designated by the servant of the innkeeper, although such place be an open uninclosed space near the public highway. Hilton v. Adams, 71 Me. 19. But see Albin v Presby, 8 N. H. 408, 29 Am. Dec. 679. So, an innkeeper, on a fair day, upon being asked by a traveler, then driving a gig, of which he was the owner, "whether he had room for the horse," put the horse into the stable of the inn, received the traveler, with some goods, into the inn, and placed the gig in the open street, without the inn yard, where he was accustomed to place the carriages of his guests on fair days. The gig having been stolen from thence, held, that the innkeeper was answerable. Jones v. Tyler, 28 E. C. L. (Eng.) 138.

74 Windham v. Mead, 4 Leon (Eng.) 96; Hawley v. Smith, 25 Wend. (N. Y.)

75 Minor v. Staples, 71 Me. 316, 36 Am. Rep. 318.