Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

86

the inn. This protest certainly seems more in keeping with the analogies of our law, for there is something foreign to the spirit of our jurisprudence in the idea that a mere thief can create in stolen goods, as to which he has no interest whatsoever, a lien in favor of the innkeeper, which shall be paramount to the title of the rightful and innocent owner of the goods. Another answer to the English rule is that the innkeeper has a means of protecting himself, in that he can always demand his compensation in advance. It is worthy of note, too, in the substantially similar case of the common carrier, no lien exists against the lawful owner, when the wrongdoer makes an unauthorized shipment of the goods."

For What Charges

An innkeeper's lien covers all proper charges for the guest's entertainment, including extras, such as wines furnished a guest, as well as the amounts due for board and lodging.3 The lien is not a general one, as that term is technically used, though each article belonging to the guest is liable for the whole amount due. Thus, there is a lien on a guest's horse, not only for the charges incurred for the horse itself, but for the entertainment of the guest, as well.39

The innkeeper, since his lien is not a general one, cannot hold the goods of the guest brought to the inn at a subsequent visit, for unpaid charges incurred by the guest on a previous stay at the inn.10

Boarding House Keepers

This lien was limited at common law to the innkeeper, and did not exist in favor of the keeper of a boarding house." There are statutes, however, in most of the states, giving this lien to the

36 Opinion of Thompson, J., in WYCKOFF v. SOUTHERN HOTEL CO., 24 Mo. App. 382, 390, 391, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 168; dissenting opinion of Thayer, J., in COOK v. KANE, 13 Or. 482, page 491, 11 Pac. 226, 57 Am. Rep. 28, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 166. In Domestic Sewing-Machine Co. v. Watters, 50 Ga. 573, it was held, in order that the innkeeper may have a lien on the goods of a third person, that services must be performed about the specific article to which the lien attaches.

37 See post, p. 476. See, also, Fitch v. Newberry, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 1, 40 Am. Dec. 33; Clark v. Lowell & L. R. Co., 9 Gray (Mass.) 231.

38 Proctor v. Nicholson, 7 Car. & P. (Eng.) 67; Watson v. Cross, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 147.

39 Mulliner v. Florence, L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. (Eng.) 484.

40 Jones v. Thurloe, 8 Mod. (Eng.) 172.

41 Singer Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 52 Minn. 516, 55 N. W. 56, 21 L. R. A. 229, 38 Am. St. Rep. 568; Pollock v. Landis, 36 Iowa, 651; Hursh v. Byers, 29 Mo. 469; Nance v. O. K. Houck Piano Co. (Tenn.) 155 S. W. 1172.

boarding house keeper, thus placing him, in this respect, on an equality with the innkeeper." When the keeper of an inn has in the inn both guests and boarders, the lien exists, in the absence of statute, only against the guests, for as to the boarders the relation of the keeper of the inn is legally that of a boarding house keeper.

48

SAME-SAME-SAME-THE WAIVER OF THE LIEN 101. The innkeeper may waive his lien by voluntarily parting with possession of the goods, or by any other conduct inconsistent with the continuance of the lien.

Waiver of the Lien

The principles of law governing the waiver of the lien of the ordinary bailee for hire, which have already been discussed,** are also in general applicable to the lien of the innkeeper. Thus, as a lien exists only by virtue of possession, when an innkeeper permits his guest to take the goods away, the lien is gone. A surrender of the possession of the goods by the innkeeper to the guest, save for a mere temporary purpose, is an effective waiver of the lien; and, once waived, the lien is not revived by the innkeeper subsequently again securing possession of the goods.*" But, where the innkeeper is induced to part with the possession of the goods through false and fraudulent representations made by the guest, he does not thereby waive his lien.48 In such case, the innkeeper can reassert his lien by again assuming possession of the goods, subject, however (it would seem), to the intervening rights of any innocent third parties.

Just as other common-law liens, that of the innkeeper may be waived by any conduct inconsistent with its continuance. There is no lien when credit is extended to the guest for the charges; while the lien is, of course, extinguished by payment, or even

42 Barnett v. Walker, 39 Misc. Rep. 323, 79 N. Y. Supp. 859; Cady v. McDowell, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 484; Cross v. Wilkins, 43 N. H. 332; Smith v. Colcord, 115 Mass. 70; Nance v. O. K. Houck Piano Co. (Tenn.) 155 S. W. 1172.

48 Singer Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 52 Minn. 516, 55 N. W. 56, 21 L. R. A. 229, 38 Am. St. Rep. 568.

44 Ante, p. 151. See, also, post, p. 478.

45 Allen v. Smith, 12 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 638, 6 L. T. 459; Caldwell v. Tutt, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 258, 43 Am. Rep. 307.

46 Danforth v. Pratt, 42 Me. 50; Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill (N. Y) 486, 38 Am. Dec. 663.

47 Manning v Hollenbeck, 27 Wis. 202.

48 Manning v. Hollenbeck, 27 Wis. 202.

49 Jones v. Thurloe, 8 Mod. (Eng.) 172,

DOB.BAILM.-19

tender 50 of the amount of the compensation. The innkeeper does not lose his lien, however, by merely taking security 51 for the payment of the guest's bill, nor by levying an execution or attach

[blocks in formation]

SAME-SAME-SAME THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LIEN

102. At common law, the innkeeper had by virtue of his lien no right to sell the goods, but this right is now very generally given by statute.

Though the innkeeper could hold the goods under his lien until his proper charges were paid, the lien, like other common-law liens, conferred on him no right to sell the goods in order to make the lien effective." Besides holding the goods, his only remedy, in the absence of statute, was to obtain from a court of equity an order to sell. the goods by a proceeding in equity to foreclose the lien. By statutes, however, the right to sell the goods under his lien is very generally given, either by statutes specially affecting the innkeeper or those applying to lienholders in general. Any excess, over and above his compensation and the expenses of the sale, remaining in the innkeeper's hands is held in trust for the guest.

55

SAME THE LIABILITY OF THE INNKEEPER AS AN ORDINARY BAILEE

103. An innkeeper may under certain circumstances be an ordinary bailee of goods in his charge. His liability is that

(1) Of an ordinary bailee for hire:

(a) For goods of a guest kept for show or sale.

innkeeper, by demanding more Where an innkeeper owes his

50 Gordon v. Cox, 7 Car. & P. (Eng.) 172. And see Allen v. Smith, 12 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 644, where it is said that an than is due, makes a tender unnecessary. guest for labor more than she owes for board, he has no lien upon her trunk. Hanlin v. Walters, 3 Colo. App. 519, 34 Pac. 686.

51 Angus v. McLachlan, L. R. 23 Ch. Div. (Eng.) 330.

52 Lambert v. Niklass, 45 W. Va. 527, 31 S. E. 951, 44 L. R. A. 561, 72 Am. St. Rep. 828.

58 Case v. Fogg, 46 Mo. 44; Fox v. McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41, 43; Jones v. Pearle, 1 Strange (Eng.) 556.

54 Fox v. McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41, 43; Black v. Brennan, 5 Dana (Ky.) 310.

55 1 Stimson, Am. Statute Law, § 4393. See, also, Brooks v. Harrison, 41 Conn. 184; Coates v. Acheson, 23 Mo. App. 255.

(b) For goods held under his lien for charges.

(c) For goods of boarders.

(2) Of a gratuitous bailee:

(a) For goods left at the inn for an unreasonable time by

a departing guest.

(b) For goods deposited by one not a guest, to be kept without compensation.

In General

An innkeeper may be an ordinary bailee of goods, and liable only as such, without being subject to the exceptional liability of an innkeeper as such. This is generally the case whenever goods in his possession are not being kept by him in his technical innkeeping relation. His rights and liabilities are then measured by the rules applicable to the different classes of ordinary bailments. The cases most frequently arising in this connection have been enumerated in the black letter text.

As an Ordinary Bailee for Hire

56

As to goods kept by the guest for show or sale, as to goods. retained by the keeper of the inn under his lien," and as to the goods of those who reside at the inn as boarders, rather than as guests, it will readily be seen that the keeper of the inn is not

56 Scheffer v. Corson, 5 S. D. 233, 58 N. W. 555; Williams v. NorvellShapleigh Hardware Co., 29 Okl. 331, 116 Pac. 786, 35 L. R. A. (N. S) 350, Ann. Cas. 1913A, 448; Fisher v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 383, 7 Sup. Ct. 929, 30 L. Ed. 930; Myers v. Cottrill, 5 Biss. 465, Fed. Cas. No. 9,985; Mowers v. Fethers, 61 N. Y. 34, 19 Am. Rep. 244; Needles v. Howard, 1 E. D. Smith, (N. Y.) 54, 61; Carter v. Hobbs, 12 Mich. 52, 83 Am. Dec. 762; Neal v. Wilcox, 49 N. C. 146, 67 Am. Dec. 266.

57 Murray v. Marshall, 9 Colo. 482, 13 Pac. 589, 59 Am. Rep. 152; Giles v. Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126; Murray v. Clarke, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 102; Angus v. Maclachlan, 23 Ch. D. (Eng.) 330, 52 L. J. Ch. 587.

58 Haff v. Adams, 6 Ariz. 395, 59 Pac. 111; Hutchinson v. Donovan, 76 Mo. App. 391; LUSK v. BELOTE, 22 Minn. 468, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 148; Lawrence v. Howard, 1 Utah, 143. And see Mowers v. Fethers, 61 N. Y. 34, 19 Am. Rep. 244. So, as to person receiving entertainment at a ball. Carter v. Hobbs, 12 Mich. 52, 83 Am. Dec. 762. An hotel keeper in whose safe a regular boarder deposits money for safe-keeping is, at most, a bailee for hire, and is not liable therefor where his night clerk steals the money from the safe, in the absence of any proof of want of ordinary care in employing him. Taylor v. Downey, 104 Mich. 532, 62 N. W. 716, 29 L. R. A. 92, 53 Am. St. Rep. 472. An innkeeper is not liable for loss of boarder's baggage and other valuables by fire, not shown to have been caused by the negligence of the innkeeper or his servants. Moore v. Long Beach Development Co., 87 Cal. 483, 26 Pac. 92, 22 Am. St. Rep. 265. He is not responsible, except as an ordinary bailee for hire, for the safe-keeping of a horse left in his stable for the night by one who is neither a lodger nor a guest, the stable having been consumed by fire, without negligence on his part. Ingallsbee v.

technically an innkeeper. But in all these cases the innkeeper receives a compensation for his custody or control. The standard by which his liability is measured is therefore that of an ordinary bailee for hire, and, in such cases, the keeper of the inn owes merely the duty of ordinary care and is responsible for loss or injury only for his negligence, which is here his failure to live up to his duty by exercising less than that degree of diligence." As a Gratuitous Bailee

When the custody of the keeper of the inn is outside of his technical relation as innkeeper, and when he receives no recompense, either express or implied, he is in the position of a mere gratuitous bailee, and as such bound to use only slight care."" The most important class of these cases is that of a guest leaving goods with the innkeeper for more than a reasonable length of time after his departure from the inn. Until the lapse of such reasonable time, as we shall see, the exceptional responsibility of the innkeeper continues; 1 but, after the expiration of such time, the keeper of the inn is a mere gratuitous bailee and liable accordingly. The innkeeper is also liable merely as a gratuitous bailee when goods are left in his charge by one who does not become a guest at all, and when there is no agreement, either express or implied, that the innkeeper shall receive any compensation for the care of such goods.**

62

61

Wood, 33 N. Y. 577, 88 Am. Dec. 409. An innkeeper is not an insurer of the safety of baggage delivered to him to be held as a pledge for money loaned, or for accommodation, by a guest, after he has severed his personal connection with the hotel by surrendering his room and paying his bill. Wear v. Gleason, 52 Ark. 364, 12 S. W. 756, 20 Am. St. Rep. 186.

59 See cases cited in notes 56-58.

60 Doorman v. Jenkins, 2 A. & E. (Eng.) 256, 4 L. J. K. B. 29.

61 Post, 104.

62 Johnson v. Reynolds, 3 Kan. 257; Miller v. Peeples, 60 Miss. 819, 45 Am. Rep. 423; O'Brien v. Vaill, 22 Fla. 627, 1 South. 137, 1 Am. St. Rep. 219; Whitemore v. Haroldson, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 312. But see Murray v. Marshall, 9 Colo. 482, 13 Pac. 589, 59 Am. Rep. 152; Adams v. Clem, 41 Ga. 65, 5 Am. Rep. 524; George v. Depierris, 17 Misc. Rep. 400, 39 N. Y. Supp. 1082. Of course, if there is a compensation, express or implied, for such keeping of the goods by the keeper of the inn, he is a bailee for hire, and as such bound to exercise ordinary care.

63 Wiser v. Chesley, 53 Mo. 547; Stewart v. Head, 70 Ga. 449; Lawrence ▼. Howard, 1 Utah, 142; Baker v. Bailey, 103 Ark. 12, 145 S. W. 532, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1085. It is usually held that a clerk at a hotel has no authority as such to receive deposits, so as to impose the liability of a gratuitous bailee on the innkeeper. Booth v. Litchfield, 201 N. Y. 466, 94 N. E. 1078, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 710; Oxford Hotel Co. v. Lind, 47 Colo. 57, 107 Pac. 222, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 495, and note, 18 Ann. Cas. 983.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »