INN-KEEPER'S LIEN ON HORSES. If a traveler, having wrongfully taken a horse, put up at an inn and become a guest, the inn-keeper, provided he had no notice of the wrong, may assert his lien on the horse, even as against the true owner.' An inn-keeper who received the horses of a neighbor for the purpose of feeding and keeping them, the neighbor reserving the right to use them at his pleasure, brought suit against a deputy sheriff who levied on the horses and sold them, to recover his charges for keeping the horses, claiming he had an inn-keeper's lien for such charges. It was held that an inn-keeper who merely received the horses of a neighbor for the purpose of feeding them, had no lien, except by a special agreement. If A injuriously take away the horse of B, and put him in an inn to be kept, and B come and demand him, he shall not have him until he hath satisfied the inn-keeper for his meat.3 H, an inn-keeper, furnished G, who was not his guest, but a mail contractor, with stables and provender for his horses for more than two years, during which time they were under the care of, and fed by the servants of G. It was held that H had no implied lien on the horses, for the debt thus contracted by G. The inn-keeper has no lien at common law on a horse placed in his stable, for the amount of its keeping, unless it was placed there by a guest at his inn.5 I, Grinnell vs. Cook, 3 Hill, 487; 2, Idem, supra ; Bacon's Abr., Inns and Innk., Title D.; approved in 3, 4, 5, Binns vs. Pigot, 9 C. & P., 208; Hickman vs. Thomas, 16 Ala., 666; COMMON LAW RULES. COMMON LAW RULES AS TO HORSES. 149 The inn-keeper contracts with the public the same engagement to receive and keep the horses of any who come to his inn, and even of those who choose only to put their horses into his stables, and themselves resort elsewhere, unless his stables are already full. It was held in an English case that if an innkeeper so negligently keep the horse put into his stable, that it is taken out by a stranger, or any of his servants, and ridden so as greatly to injure him, an action lies for the owner. He was not answerable for the horse of his guest put to pasture by the guest's directions, unless it be lost, stolen, or killed through the negligence of the hostler or his servants, as by being put into a field where there are pits or ditches, or of which the fences and gates were broken, or open; for the field is not within the bounds of the hostel to which alone the liability of the hosteller, in that peculiar character extends.3 If the horse was stolen the inn-keeper was liable to an action on the custom of the realm, although the owner had gone away several days, and it was stolen during his absence. It was held the host was obliged to charge a reasonable price for keep of a horse, to be calculated according to customs of the adjoining markets, and if he makes a gross overcharge in his bill, the guest may tender a reasonable amount, which will entitle him to a verdict, or the inn-keeper might I, Willcock on Inns, 47; 2, Stanyon vs. Davis, 6 Mod., 223-5; 3, 4, 1 Rol. Abr., 3 F., 3, 5; Cayle's Case, 8 Rep., 32 a b.; Booth vs. Wilson, 1 B. A., 59; See Fitzherbert's Nat. Brev., 943; Jelly vs. Clark, Cro. Jac., 189; Bacon's Abr., Tit. Inns and Innk., York vs. Grenaugh, 2 Ld., Ry., 687; be fined for extortion.' If a horse were stolen and taken to an inn, the owner must still satisfy the innkeeper's charges. If the inn-keeper in such case were not to have any lien, said Doderidge, J., "It were a pretty trick for who wants keeping for his horse." If several horses were brought by the same person, each can be detained for its own keep only, and not for other horses.3 THIEVES IN HOTELS. 151 CHAPTER VII. THIEVES IN HOTELS. We now come to the consideration of the question as to whether or not the inn-keeper is liable for the loss of any property of his guests which may be stolen while they are sojourning at his inn. There have been various conflicting decisions on the subject, and the most erudite law commentators have differed upon the question of his liability, as we shall hereafter see. The weight of authority seems to be in favor of holding the inn-keeper to the same liability as a common carrier, and making him responsible for all losses not occurring through the act of God, the depredations of public enemies, or the negligence of the guests. He is virtually an insurer of the property of his guests, which they bring to the inn, and which they do not take the responsibility of looking after themselves; the negligence of the guest only, can absolve him from his liability at common law, except when the statute has modified his responsibility. CONFLICTING DOCTRINES. The Vermont courts hold that if the guest's room be burglarized and his property stolen, and if the innkeeper can show that the burglar entered the room under such circumstances that the inn-keeper is free from blame, he would not be liable at the suit of his guest for such stolen articles.' This decision has not been generally followed. In several cases the courts held the true idea to be to hold inn-keepers liable as common carriers, as insurers of the guest's property committed to their care, and liable for any injury or loss not occasioned by the act of God, nor by a common enemy, nor by the guest's own neglect or default. In an English case the Court of Queen's Bench held the inn-keeper was bound to keep the goods of his guest without any stealing or purloining, and that it was no excuse for the inn-keeper that the guest left his door open. When a guest's trunk was taken to his bed room, where it was subsequently broken into and money stolen, it was held that the inn-keeper was liable." 3 THE CONFLICTING DOCTRINES SUMMARIZED. Judge Bennett, of the Supreme Court of California, has given an exhaustive opinion on the liability of an inn-keeper for goods stolen from the inn, from which several extracts are taken. He said: "It is claimed by the defendant that his house was burglariously entered, the bar-keeper overcome by force, and the property carried off by robbers; and that these circumstances exonerate him from liability. The question is, then, whether robbery from without, or burglary, will excuse an inn-keeper for the loss of the goods of his guest; and the answer to it does not ap I, McDaniels vs. Robinson, 26 Vt., 311; Morse vs. Shea, I 2, 3, Mateer vs. Brown, 1 Cal., 221; Norcross vs. Norcross, 53 4, Epps vs. Hinds, 27 Miss., 657. Miller, 7 La., An., 368; See also Simon vs. |