THE TERMINATION OF THE RELATION

104. The relation of innkeeper and guest may be terminated— (a) By the innkeeper for the guest's misconduct or default in payment of reasonable charges for his entertainment. (b) By the guest at any time, by signifying an intention to do so. When the relation is terminated, the innkeeper's exceptional

liability for the guest's goods is at an end, except that it continues for a reasonable time thereafter to enable the guest to remove his goods.

Termination of the Relation

65

64

An innkeeper has no right to terminate his relation as such to his guest except for misconduct on the part of the guest, or for the guest's failure to pay the innkeeper his reasonable charges. It will thus be seen that the innkeeper's obligation is not limited to receiving guests, but he must also continue to keep them until the guest forfeits his right to remain such either by misconduct or default in paying the innkeeper.

66

Such misconduct must in general be of a nature that would have justified the innkeeper in originally refusing to receive the guest. Thus the innkeeper can terminate the relation as to a guest who is drunk and disorderly and eject the latter from the inn. The innkeeper, too, would be justified in sending from the inn one who becomes affected with a contagious disease, if this can be safely and properly done." This is not strictly speaking misconduct, but the innkeeper finds his justification in the duty of protection which he owes to all his guests. The right of the guest to continue as such is, of course, conditioned on his fulfilling his duty of paying the innkeeper's reasonable compensation. For any default, therefore, in this respect, the innkeeper can immediately ter

64 Commonwealth v. Mitchel, 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 431; Markham v. Brown, 8 N. H. 523, 31 Am. Dec. 209; Howell v. Jackson, 6 Car. & P. (Eng.) 723; Moriarty v. Brooks, Id. 684; State v. Steele, 106 N. C. 766, 11 S. E. 478, 8 L. R. A. 516, 19 Am. St. Rep. 573; The Six Carpenters' Case, 8 Coke (Eng.) 290.

65 Lawrence v. Howard, 1 Utah, 142. See Schouler, Bailm. (2d Ed.) § 326; Doyle v. Walker, 26 Up. Can. (Canada) Q. B. 502.

66 McHugh v. Schlosser, 159 Pa. 480, 28 Atl. 291, 23 L. R. A. 574, 39 Am. St. Rep. 699.

67 Levy v. Corey, 1 City Ct. R. Supp. (N. Y.) 57; McHugh v. Schlosser, 159 Pa. 480, 28 Atl. 291, 23 L. R. A. 574, 39 Am. St. Rep. 699. Such removal must be in an appropriate and becoming manner, that does not endanger the life or health of the sick guest.

minate the relation. When the guest ceases to be a transient, he necessarily ceases to be a guest, and in such case the innkeeper need not keep the guest, just as he would not be bound to receive him as a guest."9

Of

The guest can terminate the relation whenever he chooses." course, if in so doing he breaks a contract with the innkeeper, he would thereby become liable to the innkeeper for any damages flowing from the breach." But if he does not notify the innkeeper of his intention to terminate the relation, he continues liable for any reasonable charges which accrue.72 The mere temporary absence, however, of a guest from the inn does not terminate the relation of innkeeper and guest." But the relation is terminated when the guest pays his bill, and his name is stricken from the register of guests, thus freeing him from liability as a guest, and he cannot thereafter, and while he is not a guest, claim the rights of one. The expectation to become a guest at a later date does not continue the relation," terminated at his instance, and for his advantage, by settling his account for entertainment. An innkeeper is chargeable as such because of the profit derived from the entertainment of the guest; so that the right to charge is ordinarily the criterion of the innkeeper's liability. Therefore, when the liability of the guest to be charged as such ceases, his claim on

74

68 See cases cited in note 65.

69 Lamond v. Richard, [1897] 1 Q. B. (Eng.) 541, 66 L. J. Q. B. 315, 76 L. T. 141; Whiting v. Mills, 7 Up. Can. Q. B. (Canada) 450.

70 O'Brien v. Vaill, 22 Fla. 627, 1 South. 137, 1 Am. St. Rep. 219; Glenn v. Jackson, 93 Ala. 342, 9 South. 259, 12 L. R. A. 382; Hays v. Turner, 23 Iowa, 214.

71 Sonneborn v. Steinan (Sup.) 85 N. Y. Supp. 334 (this was a case involving a boarding house keeper, but the same principle is equally applicable to innkeepers). This is merely saying that one may sue for the breach of a valid contract and recover compensatory damages.

72 Miller v. Peeples, 60 Miss. 819, 45 Am. Rep. 423.

73 Towson v. Havre de Grace Bank, 6 Har. & J. (Md.) 47, 14 Am. Dec. 254; Whitemore v. Haroldson, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 312; McDonald v. Edgerton, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 560; Allen v. Smith, 12 C. B. N. S. (Eng.) 638. One does not cease to be a guest of an innkeeper by going out to dine or lodge with a friend, or by any other temporary absence. Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 485, 38 Am. Dec. 663. Where a person takes a room at an inn and leaves his effects there, and makes the inn his principal abiding place, he does not cease to be a guest merely because he is occasionally absent from the inn and sometimes takes his meals elsewhere. McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 316, 62 Am. Dec. 574; Id., 28 Vt. 387, 67 Am. Dec. 720.

74 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.

75 Miller v. Peeples, 60 Miss. 819, 45 Am. Rep. 423; Glenn v. Jackson, 93 Ala. 342, 9 South. 259, 12 L. R. A. 382.

the innkeeper as such expires, subject only to the guest's right (as indicated in the next paragraph) to hold the innkeeper responsible as such for the baggage of the guest for such time as may be reasonable to enable the guest to effect its removal. What constitutes such a reasonable time is a question to be determined by the circumstances of each particular case."

Innkeeper's Liability for the Guest's Goods after the Innkeeping Relation is Terminated

The innkeeper's exceptional liability for the baggage of his guest does not cease immediately on the latter's leaving the inn, but this continues until the guest has had a reasonable time to effect a removal of the baggage." This is in accord with the rule obtaining in the case of the common carrier and the passenger.78 Here, too, as there, a reasonable time is usually a short time, for the guest (or ex-guest) as well as the passenger must act with suitable dispatch." After the lapse of such reasonable time, the innkeeper becomes (as we have just seen) a mere gratuitous bailee and liable only as such. But if a guest, intending to leave the inn, intrusts his baggage to the porter of the inn, whose duty it is to deliver the baggage at the depot, the relationship of innkeeper and guest, as to such baggage, continues until its delivery at the designated place.80

76 Miller v. Peeples, 60 Miss. 819, 45 Am. Rep. 423; Maxwell v. Gerard, 84 Hun, 537, 32 N. Y. Supp. 849. By leaving a horse with an innkeeper after the guest has departed, the relation of innkeeper and guest is not continued so as to render the former liable as such for a sum of money left with him by the latter while stopping at his house. McDaniels v. Robinson, 28 Vt. 387, 67 Am. Dec. 720.

77 Baehr v. Downey, 133 Mich. 163, 94 N. W. 750, 103 Am. St. Rep. 444; Murray v. Marshall, 9 Colo. 482, 13 Pac. 589, 59 Am. Rep. 152; Kaplan v. Titus, 140 App. Div. 416, 125 N. Y. Supp. 397; Murray v. Clarke, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 102; Adams v. Clem, 41 Ga. 65, 5 Am. Rep. 524.

78 Post, p. 639.

79 See Wharton, Negligence, § 687; Murray v. Marshall, 9 Colo. 482, 13 Pac. 589, 59 Am. Rep. 152.

80 Glenn v. Jackson, 93 Ala. 342, 9 South. 259, 12 L. R. A. 382; Sasseen v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242; Dickenson v. Winchester, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 114, 50 Am. Dec. 760. And so, where baggage is taken to the wrong boat by the innkeeper's servant, and so lost. Giles v. Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126.

PART TWO

CARRIERS

CHAPTER IX

PRIVATE AND COMMON CARRIERS OF GOODS

105. Carriers.

106. Private Carriers of Goods.

107. Common Carriers of Goods.

CARRIERS

105. The carrier, by far the most important of bailees, is one who undertakes to transport goods or persons from one place to another.

From modest beginnings, the carrier has experienced a tremendous development, until no other bailee can now compare with him in practical importance. Improved methods of transportation, making the world in a sense a single market, have been largely responsible, along with other civilizing factors, in making the carrier's position so lofty and so dignified. Practical importance and commercial necessity, then, would alone justify an extended and detailed discussion of, the legal incidents that attend the relation existing between the carrier and those with whom he deals.

The carrier is defined simply as one who undertakes to transport either goods or persons, or both, from place to place.1 More simply still, the carrier is one who undertakes to carry. Carriers have been variously classified according to many grounds of division. Thus carriers have been independently divided into (a) carriers by land and carriers by water, according to the element in which their business is done; (b) carriers for hire and carriers without hire, according to the presence or absence of a compensation; (c)

1 Black, Law Dict. p. 172; Van Zile, Bailm. & Carr. § 392. "Any person who carries goods or passengers, for hire or gratuitously, by land or water, is a carrier." 4 Halsbury, Laws of England, p. 2.

2 The comparative importance of, and the distinctive legal incidents depending upon, these classifications, will appear as the subject is further developed.

(296)

initial carriers and connecting carriers, according to whether they initiate or merely continue the transportation; (d) private carriers and common carriers, according to the private or public nature of their calling; and (e) carriers of goods and carriers of passengers, according to what they carry.

Of these classifications, we are chiefly concerned with the last two. Carriers by land and carriers by water are governed in general by the same principles of law, though differences in the nature of their employment may be the occasion of practical differences in the application of these rules to concrete cases. As all common carriers of goods are carriers for hire, and as private carriers for hire are very rare, resort is not frequently had to the classification. based on the reward or its absence. Whether the carrier is an initial or connecting carrier is important in practice chiefly in determining which may be sued when loss or damage is suffered. The distinction between private and common carriers is highly important, though nearly all modern transportation is in the hands of the common carrier, to whom, practically, the whole treatment of carriers is devoted. Carriers of goods and carriers of passengers differ so widely that this analysis is the basis for the division of the treatment of the whole subject and the two are treated separately. Carriers of passengers are not bailees at all, but, for convenience sake, they are discussed in detail after carriers of goods.

PRIVATE CARRIERS OF GOODS

106. The private carrier is one who, without engaging in such business as a public employment, undertakes by special contract to transport goods in particular instances from one place to another."

• Though, as is said here, the general principles of the law of carriers apply equally, whether the transportation is by land or water, there are many unique rules governing the transportation of goods and passengers by water. These rules form the body of law known as admiralty. The admiralty jurisdiction of the federal government has resulted in the regulation of carriers by sea in ways that are unheard of as to carriers by land. The bulk of admiralty litigation is tried in the United States District Court.

1 Hutch. Carr. § 35. And see Pennewill v. Cullen, 5 Har. (Del.) 238. See, also, 4 Halsbury, Laws of England, p. 4; Allen v. Sackrider, 37 N. Y. 341. One who is employed to tear down a house for another and deliver the brick and lumber at another place is simply a private carrier for hire. McBurnie v. Stelsly, 97 S. W. 42, 29 Ky. Law Rep. 1191. There are two kinds of carriers, a common carrier and a private carrier; a private carrier being one who acts in a particular case for hire or reward. O'ROURKE v. BATES, 73 · Misc. Rep. 414, 133 N. Y. Supp. 392, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 172.