INNKEEPERS. 457 



Tinder his care, he may show that the injury was the result 

 of disease.^*'^ 



The high degree of care required of an innkeeper is not 

 necessary where the relationship of innkeeper and guest does 

 not exist: the former is then merely a bailee for hire and has 

 no lien on the animal.^*® It becomes important, therefore, 

 to consider who is a guest. In some of the older cases it 

 was held that if one leaves his horse at an inn though neither 

 he nor his servants lodge there, this alone constitutes him a 

 guest so far as the horse is concerned,^*^ and this opinion has 

 been approved of in some modern cases.^^" It cannot, how- 

 ever, be considered any longer the prevailing doctrine.^®^ 



An innkeeper receiving horses as a livery-stable keeper has 

 no lien because the owner takes occasional refreshment or 

 sends a friend to be lodged there at his charge.^'^ Nor is a 

 horse to be considered the property of a guest where it is 

 placed at the inn by police under suspicious circumstances.^^^ 

 But where the innkeeper agreed with the owner of the horse 

 to entertain the man having charge of it one day in each 

 week or oftener, if he stopped with the horse, the innkeeper 

 furnishing provender and allowing the horse to be kept in 

 a certain stall under the exclusive care of the man in charge, 

 it was held that the innkeeper was answerable as such for an 

 injury received by the horse in the stall.*'** On the other 



"' Howe Mach. Co. v. Pease, 49 Vt. 477. 



"* Healey v. Gray, 68 Me. 489; Ingallsbee v. Wood, 33 N. Y. 577- 



""Gelley v. Clerk, Cro. Jac. 188; Yorke v. Grenaugh, 2 Ld. Raym. 866, 

 Holt, C. J. diss. 



^ Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 280; McDaniels v. Robinson, 

 26 Vt. 316. In Mason z;. Thompson, it was held that if the innkeeper is also 

 a livery- stable keeper, he must give notice that he receives the horse in 

 the latter capacity or he will be liable in the former. 



""' Browne Bailm. 75; Ingallsbee v. Wood, 33 N. Y. 577; Grinnell 

 V. Cook, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 485; Healey v. Gray, 68 Me. 489- 



"' Smith V. Dearlove, 6 C. B. 132. 



°" Binns v. Pigot, 9 C. & P. 208. But see Johnson v. Hill, 3 Stark. 172, 

 ■cited infra. 



'" Washburn v. Jones, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 193. 



