all personal property the guest has with him, no matter as to its value or kind. The English rule is the same with us unless abrogated by statute." A guest, after spending a few days at a hotel, gave up his room, left his valise, taking a check for it. He was gone eight days, without payname, taking It was missing ing his bill; he then registered his a new room, and called for his valise. and the duplicate check was found attached to another bag which did not belong to the guest. It was held that the inn-keeper was liable for the loss, and that the changing of the check was evidence of negligence.3 A guest paid his bill and ordered his trunk sent to the boat, at the same time leaving a porter's fee. The inn-keeper was held liable for the safety of the baggage until it was actually put on board the boat * It has been held that the inn-keeper may refuse to be `responsible for the safe-keeping of a guest's goods unless they are deposited in a certain place, and if the guest refuse or object to this, it exonerates the host in case of loss.5 It has been held that simply ordering goods to be placed in a particular room is not taking property under one's own care so as to relieve the inn-keeper from liability in case of loss." An inn-keeper is responsible for a load of goods in a wagon, belonging to a guest, if the wagon be left over night in an open, 1, Kellogg vs. Sweeney, 1 Lansing, 397; 5, Saunders vs. Spencer, Dyer, 266, a; Wilson vs. Halpin, 30 How. Pr., 124; Fuller vs. Coots, 18 Ohio St., 343; 6. Packard vs. Northcroft, 2 Metcalf, (Ky.,) 439; PROPERTY LOST IN BATH HOUSE. 109 uninclosed space near the highway, such place having been designated by the inn keeper's servant as the place for leaving the wagon. The place where the goods are deposited is not the test; it is whether they are in the custody of the inn-keeper, or at the risk of the guest. If a guest, having a drove of sheep, have them put into pasture under his direction, and they are injured by eating poisonous plants, the inn-keeper is not liable unless chargeable with negligence or want of care. 2 PROPERTY LOST IN BATH HOUSE In a case lately decided in Maine it was held that an inn-keeper who keeps a sea-bathing house, separate from the inn, is not liable for the goods and clothes of his guests left there while the guests are bathing and stolen therefrom.3 The action was brought to recover of defendant, an inn-keeper, proprietor of the Old Orchard House, at Old Orchard Beach, on the Maine coast, for money, watch, chain and ring of plaintiff, stolen from the bath house kept. by defendant at the sea-shore, where persons bathing in the sea, change their garments, and leave their clothes, the plaintiff being at the time of the loss a guest in defendant's hotel. The court said that the question was whether one who keeps an inn, and also keeps a bath house separate from his inn, is chargeable as inn-keeper for property stolen from the bath house. The judge said: "We think he is not. It seems to us that the keeping of an inn and the keeping of the bath house are separate and distinct em Piper vs. Manny, 21 Wendell, 282; 2, Hawley vs. Smith, 25 Wendell, 642; ployments and involve separate and distinct duties and liabilities. One may be an inn-keeper without being a bath house keeper, or he may be a bath house keeper without being an inn-keeper; or the same person may engage in both employments just as a livery stable keeper may also be a common carrier of passengers, but we do not think his doing so will make him responsible in the one capacity for liabilities incurred in the other. We are not now speaking of bath rooms attached to or kept within hotels, but of separate buildings, erected upon the sea-shore, and used, not as bath rooms, but as places in which those who bathe in the sea change their garments, and leave their clothes, and other valuables, while so bathing. It seems to us that such an establishment is as distinct from an inn as a wharf or boat house would be, and that an inn-keeper, as such, can no more be made responsible for property stolen from such a bath house than he could be for property stolen from a wharf, er a boat house, if he happened to be the keeper of the latter as well as the former." BAGGAGE LOST IN OMNIBUS. Where the keeper of an inn gave notice that he would furnish a free conveyance to and from the cars to all passengers with their baggage, and for that purpose employed the owner of certain carriages to take passengers and their baggage free of charge to his hotel, and a traveler, knowing this arrangement, drove in one of these cabs to the hotel and on the way there had his trunk lost or stolen through the want of skill or carefulness on the part of the driver of the cab, it was held the inn-keeper was liable for the value of the trunk. The court held that it was entirely immaterial HOTEL CLERKS AND SERVANTS. 111 whether the inn-keeper was responsible as such or as a common carrier, as in either case the consideration for the undertaking was the profit to be derived from the entertainment of the traveler as a guest, and that an implied promise to take care of the baggage of the traveler was founded upon such consideration.1 TWO GUESTS IN A ROOM. A guest left his door unlocked because the innkeeper told him he must do so or get up during the night and let others into the room who were to share its occupancy, and it was held in case of loss of his property that the inn-keeper was responsible. A hotel keeper is responsible for the conduct of another guest, placed in a room already occupied, without the consent of the occupant.3 ACTS OF HOTEL CLERKS AND SERVANTS. The Supreme Court of Ohio has recently held that the clerk of an inn-keeper has no authority to bind the proprietor, either as inn-keeper or special bailee, for the loss of money deposited for safe keeping with such clerk by a person who is not a guest of the inn at the time of making such deposit. Judge Owen said: "It is not within the course of the employment of a mere clerk of such inn-keeper to receive in deposit the goods of any except guests of the inn, and if he does so, it is a transaction between him and the owner, and no liability for the loss of such goods attaches to the inn-keeper." For any acts of the Dickinson vs. Winchester, 4 Cush., 114; 50 Am. Dec., 760; I, 2, 3, Dessam vs. Baker, 1 Wilson, 429; 4, Arcade Hotel Co. vs. Wiatt, 2 Western Rep., 376; clerk or servants within the proper scope of his employment the inn-keeper will be liable upon the general principles of agency. The general rule that the declarations of an agent will bind the principal must be taken with some limitation. It must appear that all declarations or admissions were made in the course of the business for which the servant is employed and is acting for the principal. Thus, where the bar-keeper of defendant, a hotel proprietor, said in conversation that the plaintiff had “made his pile," and exhibited a bag of gold dust which plaintiff had deposited for safe keeping at the inn, and said it contained about six thousand dollars, it was held that such declarations were not part of the res gesta, and that there was no act done by him in his character of agent, or in discharge of his duties as an agent, and that his declarations accompanying the transaction were mere hearsay. If a guest be assaulted by a servant of an inn, the hotel keeper is liable, although he himself was not present at the time or consenting thereto. If the inn-keeper be absent it makes no difference as to his responsibility. He is liable for the acts of those he left in charge.3 LANDLORD'S DILIGENCE IMMATERIAL. It will not do for the landlord to excuse his liability for loss of his guest's property by showing that he himself is free from laches and that no negligence can be imputed to him. Even if he has been diligent in his efforts to save the property of his Mateers vs. Brown, 1 California, 221; 2, Wayde vs. Thayer, 40 California, 578; Rockwell vs. Proctor, 39 Georgia, 105; I, 3, |