INNKEEPER. 



203 



by the 2nd section of the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41, it is enacted 

 that, " if an innkeeper shall refuse to receive for safe 

 custody, as before mentioned, any goods or property of his 

 guest, or if any such guest shall, through any default of 

 such innkeeper, be unable to deposit such goods or property 

 as aforesaid, such innkeeper shall not be entitled to the 

 benefit of this Act in respect of such goods or property." 

 However, it is to be presumed that this section does not 

 apply to such goods as an innkeeper was entitled to refuse 

 before this Act came into operation, as, if made applicable 

 to all goods, an innkeeper who refused to convert his inn 

 into a warehouse for the goods of his guest would be 

 disentitled to the benefit of the Act in respect of them. 



It is no defence to an action by a guest for the loss of 

 his goods for the innkeeper to allege that he was sick or of 

 non sane meinory at the time (s) ; or that there was no 

 positive negligence on his part (a) ; but the negligence of 

 the guest is a good defence, if it is gross neghgence (J), or 

 even if it occasioned the loss " in such a way as that it would 

 not have happened if the guest had used the ordinary care 

 that a prudent man may be reasonably expected to take 

 under the circumstances " (c). 



If the guest's horse is stolen the innkeeper is answerable 

 in an action upon the custom of the realm {d), even if the 

 owner has gone away for several days, and it is lost or 

 stolen in his absence, or if it has been brought by a 

 servant {e). And inasmuch as 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41, s. 1, 

 specially exempts horses from the operation of that Act, the 

 innkeeper's liability as respects amount is not restricted with 

 regard to them. 



But if a person takes another's horse, and rides him to an 

 inn where he is lost or stolen, the owner has no action 

 against the host, but has his remedy against the taker (/). 



The liability of an innkeeper for loss continues only so 



(z) Cross V. Andrews, Cro. Eliz. 

 622. 



(«) Morgan T. Rcmey, 30 L. J., 

 Ex. 131. 



(5) Armisteady. White, 20 L. J., 

 Q. B. 524. 



(c) Per Erie, C.J., Cashill v. 

 Wright, 2 Jur., N. S. 1072— 

 Ex. Ch. See also Oppenheiiner v. 

 White Lion Hotel Co., L. E. 6 C. P. 

 515; 40 L. J., C. P. 93; 25 L. T., 

 N. S. 93 ; Jones t. Jackson, 29 L. T., 

 N. S. 399 ; Herlert v. Markwell, 45 



L. T., N. S. 649; 46 J. P. 358 

 affirmed in C. A., W. N. 1882, p 

 112 ; Marchioness of Suntly v. Bed- 

 ford Motel Co., 56 J. P. 53. 



Id) Fitzherbert's Nat. Brev. 943 

 Jelly V. Clark, Cro. Jac. 189 ; York 

 T. Greenaugh, 2 Lord Eaym. 867 

 S. C, I Salk. 338. 



(e) 1 Salk. 338; 1 Eol. Abr. 3 

 Moor, 877; Cro. Jac. 224; Yelv, 

 162 ; Bac. Abr. tit. Inns and Inn. 

 keepers. 



{/) 1 Eol. Abr. 3. 



How ousted. 



Where a 

 guest's borse 

 is stolen. 



Where ano- 

 ther person's 

 horse is 

 stolen. 



Principle 



