INNKEEPER. 225 



SO that if the Innkeeper permits the Guest to take away 

 all but one, he cannot sell this to pay the expenses of 

 keeping the whole, but must deliver it up on tender of the 

 amount for its own keep (r). 



Where a person wrongfully seizes a Horse, and takes Has a lien 

 it to an Inn to be kept, the owner cannot have it until °^ a Horse 

 he has satisfied the Innlxceper for its meat ; for the Inn- -s^ron^doer. 

 keeper is not bound to inquire who is the owner of the 

 property brought to his Inn(s). If the Innkeeper in 

 such case was to have no lien, Doderidge, J., said, " It 

 were a pretty trick for one who wants keeping for his 

 Horse" (/). 



But if he knew at the time the Horse was left, that But not if he 

 the person who brought it was a wrongdoer, and not the ^^^^, ^^ ^^ 

 owner of it, he has made himself a party to thq wrongful -„ras lef t/ 

 act, and has no lien upon the Horse for its keep ; and 

 the question as to the scienter must be left to the Jury (?<). 



The Horse must be placed at the Inn by a Guest to A Horse left 

 entitle the Innkeeper to detain it for its keep ; for where ^^ *^® Police. 

 a person was stoj)ped with a Horse under suspicious cir- 

 cumstances, and it was left at an Inn by the Police, it 

 was held that the Innkeeper had no lien, and that an 

 Auctioneer, by the direction of the Innkeeper, selling the 

 Horse for its keep, was liable to the owner of the Horse 

 in an action of Trover {x). 



If the Innkeeper previously agree to give the Guest Giving a 

 credit for his entertainment, he cannot detain his Horse ^^^^^^ credit. 

 or goods ; or if where there has been no such agreement, 

 he suffer his Guest's Horse to depart "without payment, 

 or by any other means give credit to the owner, he cannot 

 afterwards detain it for the debt upon its coming again 

 into his possession (//). 



If a third parttj promise the Innkeeper to satisfy him A third party 

 for the meat of the Horse, in consideration that he will ^^^f"^ answer- 

 deliver it to the Guest, it is a good promise ; for there is 

 a good consideration, inasmuch as the Innkeeper loses the 

 detainer, which is a damage, and the Guest regains the 

 Horse, which is the advantage (;:). 



But where the owner of a Horse has fraudulently got Horse re- 



(;•) Moss V. Townscnd, 1 Bulst. («) Johnson v. HiU, 3 Stark. N. 



207. But see the Innkeepers' Act, P. C. 172. 



1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 38), s. \,post. {x) Binns v. Flgot, 9 C. & P. 208. 



(«) Turrell v. Crau-Ui/, 18 L. J., (y) Jones v. Thioioe, 8 Mod. 172 ; 



Q. B. 155. ' ,S'. a. Jones v. Fearle, 1 Str. 557. 



(0 Robinson v. IValler, Pop. 127. (:) Hutton, 101. 



