INNKEEPER. 



207 



afterwards distrained by the landlord, the distress was held 

 good, and Lord Mansfield, C.J., thought that the owner of 

 the horses had his remedy against the innkeeper under the 

 implied warranty for safe custody (z). 



An innkeeper has a general lien on all goods and chattels 

 belonging to his guest (a) . 



He has no lien on goods sent to his guest for a particular 

 purpose, and known by him to be the property of another 

 person [h), but his lien extends to goods brought to the inn 

 by a guest, though they belong to a third party, provided 

 they be such as persons ordinarily travel with (c), as these 

 he is compelled to receive. And in Threfall v. Borwick (d), 

 it was held that his lien extends to all the goods which he 

 has actually received with a guest whether the property of 

 the guest or not, and is not limited to such things as he was 

 bound to receive with the guest. 



An innkeeper retaining the goods of his guest by virtue 

 of such lien is not bound to use greater care as to their 

 custody than he uses as to his own goods of a similar 

 description (e). 



As an innkeeper by law is bound to receive the horse of a 

 traveller in case his stable is not full, he has therefore a lien 

 for its keep upon a horse left with him, and received by him 

 in his character as innkeeper (/), whether it be kept in the 

 stable or put out to grass. For the pasture of such persons, 

 set up by law for entertainment, has the same privilege as 

 the stables, and an action of trover cannot be maintained 

 against him for detaining the horse of his guest, unless the 

 money due for its keep has been paid or tendered (</). 



An innkeeper cannot detain a guest, or take olf his 

 clothes, in order to secure payment of his bill (h). 



But he may detain his horse, or may bring an action for 

 lodging, &c., without any special contract («). 



(z) Crosier v. Tomlcinson, 2 Ld. 

 E.en. 439 ; S. C. Barnes' Notes, 472. 



(a) MulUner v. Florence, 3 Q. B. 

 D. 484; 47 L. J., Q. B 700; 38 

 L. T., N. S. 167— C. A. 



(5) Broadwoody. Gfrcmara, 10 Ex. 

 417. 



(c) Snead v. Wdtkins, 26 L. J"., 

 C. P. 57. 



(d) L. E., 10 Q. B. 210 ; 44 L. 

 J., Q. B. 87; 32L. T., N. S. 32 — 

 Ex. Ch. See also Gordon v. Silier, 

 25 Q. B. D. 491 ; 59 L. J., Q. B. 

 507 ; 63 L. T., N. S. 283 ; 39 "W. R. 

 Ill, where it was held to extend to 



Innkeeper's 

 lien. 



Innkeeper has 

 a lien on a 

 horse for its 



the separate property of the wife of 

 the party to whom credit was given. 



(«) Angus T. McLachlan, 23 Ch. D. 

 330 ; 52 L. J., Ch. 587 ; 48 L. T., 

 N. S. 863; 31 "W. E. 641. 



(/) Smith V. Dearhvc, 6 C. B. 

 135; S. C. 12 Jur. 167. 



(g) 2 Eol. Abr. 85 ; Cro. Car. 

 271 ; Carth. 150 ; 1 Salk. 388. 



(A) Bac. Abr. tit. Inns and Inn- 

 keepers, 451 ; Sunbolfy. Alford, 3 

 M. & W. 248. 



(i) Saunders v. Plumnier, Orl. 

 Bridg. 227 ; Smith v. Dearlove, 6 

 C. B. 135. 



Cannot detain 

 a guest for his 

 bill. 



But may 

 detain his 



horse. 



