Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

lien is at an end; nor will it be revived by a return of the goods.' If the inn-keeper suffer a horse to be taken away and he is again brought to the inn he cannot be detained for his former demand. If he receive a stage coach, and from time to time suffer the coach and horses to depart without payment, he cannot afterwards detain the coach and horses for what was formerly due. If the inn-keeper accepts security from a guest for payment of his hotel bill, it does not waive his common law lien unless there was something in the nature of the security, or in the circumstances under which it was taken, which is inconsistent with the existence of the continuance of the lien, and therefore destructive of it.3

EXTENT OF THE LIEN.

The inn-keeper has a lien only on such property of the guest as has been delivered into his custody, and for which he would be responsible in case of loss.* The Iowa courts have held that the lien extends to

it

property exempt by law from execution. The judge who wrote the opinion said that when a lien is given. may, of course, be enforced, and that had the party given a chattel mortgage on his coat to secure his hotel bill no one would doubt the inn-keeper's right to foreclose it, notwithstanding the coat might be a part of his ordinary wearing apparel. He said that when the party became a guest at his hotel, he gave the inn-keeper a lien upon his coat as effectually as if he had given him a mortgage on it. The law implied

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

See Bird's Select Cases, p. 50;

3, Angus vs. McLachlan, 23 Ch. D., 330, 52 L. J. Ch., 587.

4,

48 L. T., 863, 31 W. R., 641;

Edwards on Bailments, 413;

that from the act of becoming a guest and taking his coat with him. He thought the rule too well established to require support from authorities, and further said it was obvious that without such a rule the business of hotel keeping could not be done.'

2

It is held that the right of an inn-keeper to detain horses for their keeping, does not extend to horses of individuals which are employed in carrying the United States mails. The horse cannot be detained for the owner's bill,3 nor can property of the guest be detained for horse-keeping. The inn-keeper has a lien on a carriage, brought to the inn by his guest, for its standing room, and this is so even if the vehicle does not belong to the guest himself. The inn-keeper has also a lien on the goods of his guest for money loaned to him if it was agreed between them at the time of making such loan that the goods should become security for it. It seems to be well settled that the lien is not confined to the goods or property of the guest which the host is legally bound to receive, for if he receives such property into his inn, he becomes responsible for its safe keeping, and therefore has a lien upon it for his charges."

LIEN ON PIANO.

A person went to an inn and stayed with his family for some time; he took with him to the inn a piano,

I,

2,

3,

4,

5,

Swan vs. Bournes, 47 Iowa, 501, 29 American Rep., 492;
U. S. vs. Barrey, 2 Wheeler's Crim. Cases, 513;
Moss vs. Townsend, 7 Bulst., 207, 217;

Westbrook vs. Griffin. Moor, 876: Rosse vs. Bramstead,

2 Roll. Rep., 438; York vs. Green ugh, 2 Ld. Ry., 687; Terrill vs. Crowley, 13 Jur., 878, 13 Q. B., 197, 18 L. J. Q.

B., 155;

6, Proctor vs. Nicholson, 7 C. & P., 67;

7, Threefall vs. Borwick, 10 L. R., Q. B., 210;

as his own, which he had hired. The inn-keeper claimed to hold the instrument as against its owner for the board and accommodations furnished to the person bringing it to the inn. It was held that whether or not he was bound to take the piano into his inn, having done so, without knowledge that it belonged to a third person, he was entitled to detain it.' When, however, a person lent a pianoforte to a professional pianist, while he was staying at an inn as a guest, the inn-keeper well knowing that it was not the property of his guest, it was held that he had no right of lien.'

CARE TO BE USED IN KEEPING

PROPERTY.

DISTRAINED

As to the care necessary to be used by the innkeeper to preserve property distrained by virtue of his lien. It was said that an inn-keeper holding goods by his right of lien is not bound to use greater care as to their custody than he uses as to his own goods of a similar description.3

SURRENDER OF LIEN AND RETAKING.

If a third party agree to satisfy the inn-keeper for the meat of a horse in consequence of its being surrendered to the guest, it is a good consideration, inasmuch as the inn-keeper loses the detention which is the damage, and the guest retains the horse, which is the advantage. When the owner of a horse has fraudulently got possession in order to defeat the

2,

I, Threefall vs. Borwick, 10 L. R., Q. B., 210, 44 L. J., 87;
Broadwood vs. Granara, 10 Ex., 417, 24 L. J., 1;
Observations on Colwell vs. Simpson, 16 Ves., 275, in
Angus vs. McLachlan, 52 L. J. Ch., 587; 48 L. T., 863;
Hutton, 101;

3,

4,

lien, the inn-keeper may retake by force, at common law, but he must make fresh pursuit of it, and retake it, else the custody is lost, for he cannot take it at any other time, as it is in the nature of a distress. But when there is a lien by agreement, it is in the nature of a pledge, and he may retake not only on fresh pursuit, but whenever he finds it. When a man with two race-horses and a groom went to the inn, and remained there several months, taking his horses out every day for exercise and training, and occasionally being absent several days, but always with intention to return, it was held that the relation of host and guest is presumed to continue until the contrary appears, and that the occasional absences did not destroy the lien. It was also held in the same case that the fact that the inn-keeper claimed a lien for the whole time, when he was entitled to a claim for a part only, was not such exercise of claim as to dispense with a tender of the amount actually due.

CONTEMPORANEOUS LIENS ON SAME PROPERTY.

It may sometime happen that several inn-keepers may have existing rights in the same property at the same time. In that case it would be proper for any one of these to give notice to the others before relinquishing possession, and the safer course to pursue. In a case arising in Missouri it appeared that the defendant, an inn-keeper, held goods of a guest to satisfy his bill. The plaintiff in the action was also an inn-keeper, and was applied to by the same person

Rosse vs. Bramstead, 2 Roll., 438;

I,

2,

Allen vs. Smith, 12 C. B. N. S., 638, 31 L. J. C. P., 306;
Affirmed on Appeal, 9 Jan. N. S., 128;

who had been the guest of defendant, for accommodations. This person promised plaintiff a lien for such accommodations on the same baggage held by defendant, subject, however, to defendant's right of lien. The defendant agreed with plaintiff to hold the luggage until both bills were paid by the guest, and not to give it up to him until he had paid plaintiff's bill as well as his own. In violation of this agreement, defendant surrendered the baggage to the guest after his own bill was paid, in consequence of which plaintiff lost the amount due him for keeping the guest and his wife. The court held that defendant's promise to retain possession of the property until both bills were paid. was founded upon a good consideration; that the plaintiff received an injury by trusting to defendant's promise, and that while defendant's posi tion was not precisely that of a depository, it was analogous to it. The court held the transaction to be in the nature of a voluntary bailment, and of an agreement to enable the guest to obtain credit, and held defendant liable. The court stated that if the defendant was unwilling to hold the property any longer after his own bill was paid, he should have notified plaintiff to take it away, and not having done so, he had no right to deliver it to the defendant's guest.'

FORECLOSING THE LIEN.

The statute of this State provides an easy method for the enforcement of a lien on the baggage or effects of one who is delinquent in the payment of the proper charges for his entertainment. 530, of the laws of 1879, reads as follows:

1, Hartzell vs. Saunders, 49 Mo., 433;

Chapter

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »