454 BAILMENT. 



Under this rule, which seems to be supported by the weight 

 of authority, the innkeeper may exonerate himself by show- 

 ing" that the injury to or loss of an animal placed in his charge 

 was not due to his negligence or that of his servants. ^^^ This 

 applies especially to the case of the destruction of an animal 

 by fire or otherwise for, as was said in an Illinois case, — "an 

 innkeeper can have no motive to destroy the animal of his 

 guest and there is not the same reason for holding him re- 

 sponsible at all events for such a loss, as there would be a 

 common carrier or even an innkeeper for the loss of goods 

 which had disappeared from his possession; because in the 

 latter case he may have converted the goods to his o\vn use, 

 while, in the former, he could gain nothing by the death of 

 the animal. Accordingly a distinction is made in the law 

 books between the liability of innkeepers and common car- 

 riers, particularly for losses occasioned by the death of 

 animals." ^'^ 



The innkeeper is bound to provide safe stabling for the 

 horses of his guests and is liable for any injury resulting from 

 his negligence in that respect.^** Where a guest's horse is 

 injured by being kicked by another, the presumption is that 

 the innkeeper was negligent.^^* So, where it is choked to 

 death in a stall owing to the method of hitching or the con- 

 dition of the stall.2^^ But where the plaintiff tied a horse 

 to a stall where it had been previously kept and the next day 

 it was found dead from having caught its head in a trough 

 and it was not sufficiently shown that the plaintifif was a 



^'Dawson v. Chamney, S Q- B. 164; Cutler v. Bonney, 30 Mich. 259: 

 Merritt v. Claghorn, 23 Vt. 177; Vance v. Throckmorton, s Bush. (Ky.) 

 41; Hill V. Owen, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 323; Metcalf v. Hess, 14 111. 129. 



'^ Metcalf V. Hess, supra. And see the cases cited in the last note. 



'^ Dickerson v. Rogers, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 179. And see, as to cattle, 

 Hilton V. Adams, 71 Me. 19. 



'''Dawson v. Chamney, supra; Sibley v. Aldrich, 33 N. H. 553; Clary 

 V. Willey, 49 Vt. 55. 



''■Walker v. Sharpe, 31 U. C. Q. B. 340; Jordan v. Boone, 5 Rich. L. 

 (S. C.) 528 



