INNKEEPERS. 459 



keep and for the charges for the guest's personal entertain- 

 ment.^®" The lien exists only as against one who is at the 

 time a guest, not one whO' is an ordinary bailor for hire.^®^ If, 

 after the lien has accrued, the animal is removed and sub- 

 sequently brought back, the lien is revived on its return.^®^ 



The innkeeper has a lien on a horse for its keep although 

 it had been wrongfully seized under color of a legal proceed- 

 ing, unless he knew that the party making the seizure was a 

 wrongdoer at the time.^®^ But the owner of a stolen horse 

 taken to an inn is not liable to the innkeeper for a lien on its 

 keep to more than the value of the horse : the innkeeper must 

 look for the residue to the person from whom he received 

 the horse. ^®* And the sale of a stolen horse for the inn- 

 keeper's lien, as directed by statute, does not divest the real 

 owner's title.^®^ 



The lien is waived where the innkeeper sells the animal in 

 order to reimburse himself.^*® At the common law he could 

 not sell at all : his remedy to enforce the lien was by an action 

 in the nature of a bill in chancery.^®'' 



Where one requires refreshment at an inn while accom- 

 panied by a large dog and insists, against the innkeeper's 

 protest, on the dog staying with him, the presence of the 

 dog afifords a lawful excuse to the innkeeper to refuse to 

 receive the traveller or give him refreshment or accom- 

 modation.^®^ 



'" Lawson Bailm. § 82; Mulliner v. Florence, 3 Q. B. D. 484. 



'" Hickman v. Thomas, 16 Ala. 666; Grinnell v. Cook, supra; Fox v. 

 McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41; Elliott v. Martin, 105 Mich. 506. 



"' Huffman v. Walterhouse, 19 Ont. 186. 



™ Johnson v. Hill, 3 Stark. 172. 

 See Binns v. Pigot, 9 C. & P. 208, cited supra. 



'" Black V. Brennan, S Dana (Ky.) 310. 



™ Gump V. Showalter, 43 Pa. St. 507. 



'" Mulliner v. Florence, 3 Q. B. D. 484. 



'" Fox V. McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41. 



'" Reg. V. Rymer, 46 L. J. M. C. 108. 



