RlfJHTS AM) I.TAl'.lI.ITIES OF INNKKKPKKS, ETf. 99 



and proper aocommodation for liis guests and ihfir 

 horses, in sliort, suoli aocommodation as tlio inn 

 possesses uithoiil inoonvoniencing others (/•). 11' 

 (lio innk(^opor lias only a stable for a horse ho is 

 not bound to receive the carriage (/). If a person Liability of 

 goes to an inn to stay there, and the innkeeper i"°rcsp?ct 

 receive him as a guest, the innkeeper will bo liable of gu'-'st's 

 if the guest's horse is stolen {»i), even if the guest 

 is only received and has come for mere temporary 

 refreshment (//). In York v. Grimhtonc {o) three 

 judges held, against Lord Holt's opinion, tliat if 

 a guest leave his horse at an inn and lodge else- 

 where, he is a guest, "because," they said, "the 

 horse must be fed, by which the innkeeper hath 

 gain; otherwise, if ho left a dead thing." If a 

 guest desire the innkeeper to put his horse out to 

 grass and the horse is lost or stolen, the innkeeper 

 is not liable. He is only liable for the loss of a 

 horse from within the hostelry, and that only by 

 the custom of the realm (;;) ; but if the innkeeper 

 puts the horse out to grass without the owner's 

 request, then he is liable {q). However, if the 

 horse be stolen from the inn stable by means of a 



(A) Fell V. Knight, 8 M. & W. 270. 



(/) Broadwood v. Granara, 10 Exch. 423 ; 24 L. J., Ex. 1, 

 (wj) Jelly V. Clarke, Cro. Jac. 188 ; Bac. Abr. Inns, c. 5. 

 («) Bennett v. Mellor, 5 T. R. 273. 

 (o) Salk. 388 ; 2 Lord Raymond, 868. 

 {p) Saunders v. Plummer, Orl. Bridg. 226. 

 (?) Cahje'scase, 8 Coke, 32 b ; Moseley v. Fonset, 1 Rol. Abr. 5 ; 

 niehmond v. Smith, 8 B. .<c C. 9 ; 2 M. & R. 235. 



II 2 



