345 



there is also another essential difference between 

 the cases of an innkeeper, and a livery-stable 

 keeper, which affects the safety of those who 

 entrust their horses to their care. The horses in 

 the stable of an innkeeper, placed there for 

 temporary accommodation by travellers, are not 

 liable to be seized under a distress for rent, but 

 in the case of a livery-stable keeper, this liability 

 attaches to them ; and hence it is most material 

 for the owner to be assured of the solvency of the 

 liveryman. Vide Francis v. Wyatt, 3 Burr. 1498, 

 and Rol. Abr. 668 ; but vide also Crosier v. Tom- 

 kinson, 2 Ld. Ken. 439, for a distinction in the 

 case of a stable, underlet by the tenant to an 

 innkeeper during races. Though my work is not 

 intended for the exclusive edification of innkeepers, 

 I have found since I published my first edition 

 that I have a debt of gratitude to discharge to 

 many of them. I cannot acquit myself of it better 

 than by adding one or two cases of great practical 

 importance to them. 



The general responsibility of an innkeeper is 

 well understood. The authority for it is the case 

 of Cross V. Andrews, Cro. Eliz. 622 ; but it is not 

 as well known that "where one leaves a horse at 

 an inn to stand there by agreement at livery, 

 although neither himself nor his servants lodge 



