Raine and Littledale, for plaintiffs. Scarlett, Richardson, and F. Pollock, for defendants. 1815. BREED and Others v. GREEN and THE DICAS . HIDES. a March 28. who has a li cense to let not bound by post horses, is law to furnish them to a tra the common veller, though he have a chaise and HE declaration stated that the defendant was An innkeeper, an innkeeper, and licensed to let post horses.; that on the 22d of December, 1815, plaintiff was received into his house as a guest and traveller; that he requested the defendant to let him to hire post chaise and horses to convey him on his journey it then stated that defendant at the time had horses at lipost chaises and horses unemployed. The decla- berty at the ration likewise averred the tender of a reasonable application, and though a sum for the hire of the chaise, &c.; but that the reasonable defendant refused to let him have one. Plea: Not dered to him guilty. The defendant kept an inn at Four Lane Ends, at Hulton, in Lancashire. Upon the sign over his door was written "licensed to let post horses." Notice had been given him to produce his license. Plaintiff was on his road from Wigan to Manchester, and stopped at defendant's inn to change time of the price be ten for the hire. 1815. DICAS v. HIDES. horses, and to proceed on his journey. It was stated by the plaintiff's Counsel, that the defendant at the time had post chaises and horses at liberty in his stables; and that he offered to convey the plaintiff on his journey with four horses; but plaintiff would only consent to take two, which were refused. Scarlett, for the plaintiff, contended, that when an innkeeper takes out a license to let post horses, he enters into a contract with the public to let them out for the accommodation of passengers. He has no right to select his customers; to say, he will serve one man and not another. He cannot evade this duty by demanding exorbitant prices. If he has the convenience, he ought to furnish it when a reasonable price is tendered. The plaintiff tendered the money, and no private pique ought to induce an innkeeper to withhold the accommodation. Raine, for the defendant, contended, that this was an action of first impression; that it could not be supported in law; but that he was ready to meet it on the merits. LE BLANC, Justice.-The declaration does not state any custom of the realm, but merely a duty. I am of opinion that there is no legal obligation on the defendant to let post chaises and horses, notwithstanding he has obtained a license for so doing. The action, therefore, is not maintainable. I will, however, save the point. The defendant's counsel, to prevent coming again, requested that the case might go to the Jury on the merits. Accordingly they called witnesses, and proved that the defendant had not horses capable of performing the journey at the time. Verdict for the defendant. Scarlett and Cottingham for plaintiff. Raine and Cross, for defendant. [Attornies, Smith. -Foulkes.] 1816. DICAS v. HIDES. FARNWORTH and Others, Assignees of CURTIN, a THE room, for the shop or ware. onerates the any loss he the property HE defendant was an innkeeper at Birming- If a guest demand, and ham. On the 23d of January, 1813, Curtin have exclusive brought goods with him to the inn for sale as he possession of a was travelling through the country. He staid at purpose of a the inn about 14 days, and eat and slept there. house, he exHis goods were deposited in a parlour on the landlord from ground floor; for two or three days he had the may sustain in key of this room in his possession, and used to lock which he it up. Afterwards the landlady wished to put some keeps in that goods of other travellers there, and asked his per- But if he have mission. He gave her leave, and delivered her the key for that purpose; but desired that the key should always be kept within the bar, that he might have it when he wanted it. Other parcels were put in the room; and, a few days after Curtin delivered up the key, he lost a package of the value of 50%. apartment. not an exclu sive posses lord is liable, sion, the land 1816. FARNWORTHI and Others 2. PACKWOOD. Raine, for the defendant, contended, that if this had been a lodging-room the landlord would have been answerable for any loss, though the guest had a key to lock it. But the room in question was taken as a warehouse for Curtin's goods. It was not an apartment to sleep or dine in, but for the purposes of trade. The landlord, therefore, was not responsible under such circumstances. The defendant's Counsel then called witnesses to prove that the key was exclusively under Curtin's controul; the evidence on this point was contradictory. LE BLANC, Justice. The landlord is not liable, in a case where the guest, by way of excessive caution and security, takes an exclusive charge of a room or of goods. The guest may so conduct himself as to wave the common law liability of the landlord. But the question is, did Curtin take upon himself exclusive possession of the parlour; that is to say, exclusive of the landlord and other persons. A landlord is not bound to furnish a shop to every guest. If a traveller applics for a room, not to sleep or live in, but as a shop or warehouse, and takes an exclusive possession, he exonerates the landlord. Whilst Curtin kept the key himself, the landlord was not answerable; but when he delivered up the key to the landlady; when other persons had access to the room, and other goods were deposited there, the landlord's liability revived. If Curtin had exclusive possession he must bear the loss; but if, at the time the goods were lost, they were not under Curtin's exclusive care, the defendant is responsible. His Lordship left the case to the Jury on the evidence, who found a verdict for the defendant. Scarlett and Richardson, for plaintiff. Raine and Littledale, for defendant. [Attornies, Gaskell. The goods of a traveller are not in the custody of the innkeeper, so as to charge him with any loss, unless they are placed within the inn. Calye's case, 8 Rep. 63. Therefore, if the guest require the host to turn his horse out to pasture, who accordingly does so, the liability of the innkeeper is discharged. Secus, if the innkeeper of his own accord puts it to grass; in which case his responsibility is the same as if the animal had remained in his stable. 8 Rep. 64. The guest need not deliver the goods in special charge to the innkeeper, nor acquaint him that he has any. If the traveller have property with him, or about his person, the innkeeper is bound to the custody of it without communication. The duty is founded on the common law, and is derived from the relation of traveller and host. Ibid. But the innkeeper may require that the property of his guest be delivered into his hands, in order that it may be put into a Chater.] secure place; and if the traveller refuse, the innkeeper is not responsible for its safety. Ibid. The host cannot oblige the guest to take charge of his own goods, for this, in effect, would be a refusal to admit them into the inn. (See Bennet v. Mellor, 5 T. R. 273.) And it is no excuse for an innkeeper to say, that he delivered the key of the chamber, in which the property stolen was placed, to the guest, who left the door open. Calye's case, 8 Rep. But in a late case Lord Ellenborough observed, that although the landlord cannot exonerate himself by merely handing over a key to his guest, yet, if the guest takes the key, it is a proper question for the jury whether he takes it animo custodiendi, and for the purpose of exempting the landlord from his liability. Burgess v. Clements, K. B. Trinity Term, 55 G. 3. See likewise Comyn's Digest, Vol. 1, 285; and Hammond's Law of Nisi Prius, 322, 323. 1816. FARNWORTH and Others v. PACKWOOD. |