WHEN LIABILITY ENDS, 103 In Wharton on Negligence, Sec. 687, he says: "It is an interesting question how long, when a guest leaves his baggage with an inn-keeper, the inn-keeper is liable, as inn-keeper, for such. Judging from the analogy obtained as to common carriers, we would conclude that the exceptional and onerous insurance liability of the inn-keeper would not continue after the guest has permanently left the inn, allowing, of course, for a few hours which may be necessary for parties to effect a removal." Where a boarder is ordered to leave a hotel for non-payment of his bill, and thereupon leaves without removing his baggage, it is held that the proprietors thereof are responsible as bailees of such baggage without reward, and are responsible only for gross negligence. A guest at an inn paid his bill and had his name stricken from the register, in the morning, purposely to relieve himself of his liability as a guest during a short absence, intending to return at night. He left his valise in his room with a friend and it was stolen during his absence. court held that the inn-keeper was not liable as he is only chargeable as such from the profit derived from entertaining guests, and where the right to charge, the criterion of liability, ceases, the guest's claim on the inn-keeper expires, subject only to the right to hold him responsible for the reasonable time for a removal of the goods, which is to be determined by circum stances.2 THE INN NOT A BAGGAGE DEPOT. The The traveler cannot send his baggage to an inn, without being himself a guest there, and hold the I, Lawrence vs. Howard, 1 Utah Rep., 142; 2, Miller vs. Peeples, 60 Miss., 819; landlord to his common law liability. This is the doctrine promulgated by our own courts and it seems to have been the law in England. He is also under an obligation to receive whatever goods his guests bring with them, but he is not bound to receive the goods of one who proposes to deposit them with him, and to go elsewhere, for as he reaps no profit from the deposit of goods, he is not bound to take them under his charge." It is not the business of the hosteller to receive deposits of goods from persons who are not guests of the inn. The inn-keeper, with whom baggage of his guest has been left with his consent, after departing from the inn, is held liable as innkeeper without additional compensation for a reasonable time, according to the circumstances of the case.3 I It seems to be apparent from the nature of the duties and obligations of the keeper of a common or public inn, that he is not, in his capacity of innkeeper, bound to receive or furnish accommodations for persons desirous of exposing their commodities for sale, or bound to permit his establishment to be made a depot for the propagation of horses. He is doubtless bound to receive and entertain a strolling peddler, and securely guard his pack of trinkets if brought infra hospitum, so long as he remains a mere guest. So, also, would he be bound to receive and entertain a wayfarer, encumbered with a stallion, but under no obligations as an inn-keeper to allow his curtilage to be turned into an asylum for the breeding of horses.* I, 2, Wilcock on Inns, 47; York vs. Grindstone, 6 Salk., 388; Lane vs. Cotton, 3, Adams vs. Clem, supra; 4, Mowers vs. Fethers, 61 N. Y., 38; LIABILITY FOR LAUNDRY BILLS. 105 Judge Drummond, of the United States Circuit Court, recently laid down the following rule concerning the goods of a commercial traveler: "I think this is the true rule on the subject. If a person going into a hotel as guest, takes to his room, not ordinary baggage, nor those articles which generally accompany the traveler, but valuable merchandise, such as watches and jewelry, and keeps them for show and sale, and from time to time invites parties into his room to inspect and to purchase, unless there is some special circumstance in the case showing that the innkeeper assumes the responsibility as of ordinary baggage, as to such merchandise, the special obligations imposed by the common law do not exist, and the guest as to those goods becomes the vendor and uses his room for the sale of merchandise, and really changes the ordinary relations between inn-keeper and guest." LIABILITY FOR LAUNDRY BILLS. The hotel keeper is not obliged to pay the washing bills of his guests which have been incurred at outside laundries, unless he have been in the habit of paying their laundry bills; in that case an undertaking on his part might be inferred and considered evidence of an antecedent promise." LIABILITY FOR LOST BAGGAGE. In considering the liability of an inn-keeper for the baggage of his guests we may observe that this responsibility is founded upon a very ancient custom and was recognized by the civil law. The Roman I, Myers vs. Cottrill, 5 Bissell, 465; 2, law gave an action against the inn-keeper if the goods of a traveler were lost or damaged in any way except by inevitable accident, and even then it is intimated by Ulpian that inn-keepers were not altogether restrained from knavish proclivities or suspicious neglect.' The common law liability of an inn-keeper for the goods of his guests damaged or stolen while under his care. is almost as ancient as the system of jurisprudence itself. The law regulating the liability of inn-keepers is founded on the great principle of public utility to which all private considerations ought to yield; for travelers who must be numerous in a rich and commercial country, are obliged to rely almost implicitly on the good faith of inn-keepers, whose education and morals are often none of the best, and who might have frequent opportunities for associating with ruffians and pilferers, while the injured guest could seldom or never obtain legal proof of such combinations, or even of their negligence, if no actual fraud had been committed by them.3 In order to render an inn-keeper liable it is not necessary that the goods be placed in his special keeping, or brought to his special notice. If they be in the inn, brought there in an ordinary way, by a guest, it is sufficient to charge the proprietor. The innkeeper is not freed from liability by proving that neither himself nor his servants are to blame, or in fault; he is liable in any event unless he can show I, 2, Wharton on Innk., p. 88; 3, Jones on Bailments, 95, 96; 4, Cayle's Case; Packard vs. Northcroft, 2 Met., 439; Norcross vs. Norcross, 53 Me., 113; Burrows vs. Trieber, 21 Md., 320; McDonald vs. Edgerton, 5 Barb., 560; Coykendall vs. Eaton, 55 Barb., 188; LIABILITY FOR lost baggage. 107 that the loss or injury occurred through the act of God, or of public enemies, or was the fault of the guest.' The landlord is equally liable whether baggage is put into a room, a horse handed over to the hostler, or goods placed in an outhouse belonging to the establishment and used for that sort of articles." Where a guest's baggage was left by the landlord's servant in the hall, and the servant afterward wanted to carry it into the commercial room, but was prevented by the guest, who wanted it left in the hall, and it was subsequently lost, the inn-keeper was held liable.3 Where the inn-keeper sends his porter to the cars to receive the baggage of intending guests, he is liable for the same until it is actually re-delivered into the custody of the guests. It has been long settled law that a landlord cannot make his guests take care of their own goods. In one case a guest had actual notice that the innkeeper would not be responsible for valuables unless put under his care, and on preparing to depart, he gave a trunk containing precious goods into the care of a servant of the inn-keeper's. It was held the innkeeper was liable for its loss. Inn-keepers as well as common carriers are regarded as insurers of the property committed to them. The law rests on the same principles of policy here as in England and other countries. The liability of the inn-keeper extends to 6 |