204 



INNKEEPERS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



upon which 

 liability de- 

 pends. 



Horse out at 

 grass by the 

 guest's desire. 



Horse out at 

 grass without 

 the guest's 

 desire. 



long as he derives benefit from his visitor or his property, 

 for if the innkeeper could not gain a profit, he is not liable 

 to suffer loss without a special undertaking {g), for so long 

 only is a visitor a guest. Upon this principle a person 

 leaving a horse at an inn becomes a guest, while a person 

 leaving dead goods at an inn does not become a guest, for 

 the horse must be fed, by which the innkee2}er has gain (h). 

 And therefore the innkeeper is liable for the loss of the 

 horse, although its owner is not staying at the inn. Thus, 

 too, when a person came to an inn, and desired to leave 

 some goods there till the next week, which was refused, and 

 then stayed to drink something during which time his goods 

 were stolen, the innkeeper was held to be liable («'). But if 

 a man who has been a guest, gives up his room, and quits 

 the inn for a few days, intending to return, and asks for 

 permission to leave his goods at the inn, and the innkeeper 

 takes charge of them, the innkeeper is clothed only with the 

 ordinary duties and responsibilities of a bailee (k) . 



An innkeeper is only bound by the custom of the realm to 

 answer for those things that are infra kospitiuin, and not 

 for anything out of his inn. For where a horse is lost or 

 stolen when out at grass by the guest's desire, the host is 

 not chargeable, unless it was the consequence of his wilful 

 negligence (/) : for instance, an action lies against an inn- 

 keeper who voluntarily leaves open the gates of his close, 

 whereby the horse strays out and so is lost or stolen [m). 



But he is answerable if he has put the horse out to grass 

 without the owner requiring him to do so {in). And where 

 an innkeeper took in a horse and gig on a fair- day, and the 

 hostler, without the guest's permission, placed the gig out- 

 side the inn-yard, in the part of the street in which the 

 carriages at the inn were usually placed on fair-days, and 

 the gig was stolen thence, the Court of King's Bench held 

 the innkeeper responsible. And Mr. Justice Taunton said, 

 " It does not appear that the gig was put in this place at 

 all at the request or instance of the plaintiff; the place is 

 therefore a part of the inn ; for the defendant by his con- 

 duct treats it as such. If he would wish to protect himself. 



[g) Odkiji. Clerk, Cro. Jac. 188. 



\K) Yorl: T. Grindstone, 1 Salk. 

 388. See also Bay v. Bather, 2 H. 

 &C. 14; 32 L. J., Ex. 171. 



()■) Bmnet v. Mellor, 6 T. E. 

 273; 2R. R. 693. 



IJi) Smith V. Bearlove, 6 C. B. 

 132. 



(?) Saunders v. Plummer, Orl. 

 Bridg. 227. 



(«j) Eac. Abr. tit. Inns and Inn- 

 keepers ; Calye's ca^e, 8 Coke, 32 b ; 

 Moor, 1229 ; Pop. 127 ; Mosley v. 

 Fosset, 1 Rol. Abr. 3 ; 4 Leon. 96 ; 

 2 Brownl. 255 ; Richmond t. Smith, 

 S. B. &C. 11. 



