neighbor beg a night's lodging and lose anything during his stay, the host is not liable. The person robbed must be a traveler and guest. Where a man boards or sojourns at an inn under special agreement and is robbed, the inn-keeper shall not be answerable.' If the inn-keeper invites one to supper, and, it being late, asks him to stay all night and he is robbed, the inn-keeper is not liable because he was not there as a guest.3

Judge Daly distinguishes the relations of guest and boarder as follows: "A guest as distinguished from a boarder is bound for no stipulated time. He stops.at the inn for as short or as long time as he pleases, paying while he remains, the customary charge. While he occupies the position of a guest the inn-keeper has a lien upon his effects, and may detain them until he is paid for the accommodation which has been furnished; but if he and the innkeeper enter into a special agreement for any fixed period, at a stipulated price, he ceases to be a guest and becomes a boarder. The inn keeper relies upon the special agreement and has no longer a lien upon the effects. In modern times, and especially in cities, the practice has become very general of furnishing accommodation by the week or by the month at a fixed rate, or as the parties may agree, and the persons who furnish accommodation in this way are distinguished as keepers of boarding-houses." +

The length of time a man is at an inn makes no difference, whether he stays a week, or a month, or

GUEST AND BOARDER.

69

longer; so although he is not strictly transient, he retains his character as a traveler.' A guest does not lose his character as such by proposing, after his ar rival, to the landlord to remain a certain time, nor by ascertaining the charges, nor by paying in advance, nor from time to time as his wants are supplied.' It is also maintained that if after taking quarters at an inn, one should make an arrangement with the landlord to pay a certain price per week for his board if he stayed a certain time, he does not thereby cease to become a guest.3 The distinction is made by Story as follows: "The length of time that a man is at an inn makes no difference; whether he stays a week, or a month, or longer; so always that, although he is not strictly transiens, he retains his character as a traveler. And if he still is in reality a traveler, the making of a special agreement with the inn-keeper for the price of his board by the week, will not change his character as a guest and make him a mere boarder."

“If

But if a person comes upon a special contract to board, and sojourn at an inn, he is not, in the sense of the law a guest; but he is deemed a boarder. an inhabitant of a place makes a special contract with an inn-keeper there for board at his inn, he is a boarder and not a guest." The doctrine of Cayle's case was thus interpreted: "If a neighbor of the inn-keeper come to the inn-keeper, he shall not answer to the

Mowers vs. Fethers, 61 N. Y., 34;

Pinkerton vs. Woodward, 33 Cal., 557;

I,

2,

3,

Shoecroft vs. Bailey, 25 Iowa, 553; Berkshire Woolen Co. vs. Proctor, 7 Cush., 417; Hall vs. Pike, 100 Mass., 495;

goods, for he is not lodged, but as a tippler." Judge Redfield says that where one lives in the same town he cannot compel the inn-keeper to receive him as a guest, but undoubtedly by special agreement the innkeeper may receive him as such and if he do, cannot excuse himself from his ordinary responsibility by showing that his guest was not a traveler. In a recent case arising in Massachusetts it appeared that the plaintiff, a mechanic, a resident of New Brunswick, but who had been living in Boston, was employed on a building at Cambridge which is practically a part of Boston, and gave up his boarding-house in Boston and went to defendant's house. Articles were stolen from his room, and he sued as a guest, not alleging negligence, and recovered. The court held it was a question of fact, to be determined from all the evidence, whether the plaintiff sustained the relation of guest or boarder at defendant's inn at the time of the loss of the articles sued for.3

GUEST NEED NOT DISCLOSE NAME.

The inn-keeper cannot compel a guest to sign his name in the hotel register. He has no right to pry into his secrets and demand his name and address, and the guest is justified in refusing to disclose his identity to the host.*

DISAGREEABLE GUESTS.

It was held in Pennsylvania that if a guest made

Warbrook vs. Griffin, 2 Brown & Gold., 254;

See note to Walling vs. Potter, 9 Am. Law. Reg., 618,

620;

I,

2,

DISAGREEABLE GUESTS.

71

himself extremely disagreeable to other guests of the hotel, the inn-keeper had a right to require him to leave the house, and if he did not go upon request, the inn-keeper might lay his hands gently upon him and lead him out, and if resistance was made, he might use sufficient force to accomplish the desired end.' But the court reversed this later on and held it to be assault and battery to eject a guest in this manner.* The Illinois courts have maintained a similar doctrine,3 and this seems to be the established rule of law on that subject. In an English case it appeared that the plaintiff was a cabin passenger on a vessel, having paid his fare as such passenger. He was in the habit of reaching across others at table to help himself, and to take the food he was eating in his fingers while eating in the presence of other guests. The captain on account of his conduct and lack of politeness, refused to treat him as a cabin passenger, and excluded him from the cabin and from the weather side of the

ship. After landing, the disagreeable passenger
brought action against the captain to recover dam-
for breach of the agreement to carry plaintiff as
ages
a cabin passenger. The defendant set up the offens-
ive conduct of the passenger, but he was held liable
to respond in damages. Chief Justice Tindal re-
marked that it would be difficult to say what degree
of polish would, in point of law, warrant a captain in
excluding out from the cuddy. Conduct unbecoming
a gentleman might, he thought, in the strict sense of
the word, possibly justify such action.*

I, Commonwealth vs. Mitchell, 2 Pars. Sel. Cas., 431;
Commonwealth vs. Mitchell, 1 Philadelphia, 63;
See Kelsey vs. Henry, 49 Ill., 488;

2,

4, Pendergast vs. Compton, 8 Carr. & Payne, 454;

GUEST HAVING CONTAGIOUS DISEASE.

Where a guest at a hotel is taken ill with a contagious disease likely to be communicated to others, the proprietor of the hotel, after notice, has the right to remove the guest in a careful and becoming manner, at an appropriate hour, to some hospital or other place of safety, provided the life of the guest is not imperiled thereby; or he may make any reasonable agreement for extra compensation in allowing the guest to remain, but if such compensation is not founded upon mutual assent, but an arbitrary assessment is exacted by threats of removal when the guest is not in a condition to be removed, or at a time and in a manner not warranted by the circumstances, then such amount obtained by duress may be recovered back by the person from whom it was wrongfully exacted.'

GUEST CONTRACTING DISEASE AT INN.

The inn-keeper knowing that there was small pox in his inn, kept it open for business and received the plaintiff as a guest. The plaintiff did not know there was small pox in the inn but had heard rumors to that effect; she contracted the disease while at the inn and it was held that defendant was liable.2 In this case the judge said: "The District Court left it to the jury to determine whether plaintiff was guilty of imprudence or negligence in going to the hotel after she heard the rumor that the disease was in the house, without inquiring further as to its truth; and they were told that if the circumstances were such as that ordinary prudence and care demanded that she

Levy vs. Corey, 1 City Ct. Supp., 57;

2, Gilbert vs. Hoffman, 66 Iowa, 205; 55 Am. Rep., 263;