"for their account." On the 25th they wrote as follows: "We have paid the money, agreeably to your desire, into the hands of Jones, Loyd and Co. We inquired if you had an account open with them that we might have it placed thereto; but, being told you had not, we desired it to be placed to the credit of your account with Roscoe and Co. We trust we did right; this being in fact the only manner in which Jones, Loyd, and Co. would take it at all." Several orders were read, in which plaintiffs had directed the defendants to pay money to Esdaile's house, to be placed to the credit of their account with Roscoe and Co., and the defendants had never paid, on any occasion, money to the sole account of the plaintiffs at either house. In one or two instances it appeared that money had been paid to the credit of the bankers' (Roscoe and Co.'s) account, when it had been directed to be paid to the credit of the plaintiffs', or one of their partners. During the whole time that defendants were the agents of the plaintiffs, Roscoe and Co. were their bankers at Liverpool, and defendants paid the proceeds of the sales which they made for the plaintiffs into the house of Jones, Loyd, and Co., in the same manner in which they had been accustomed to pay at Esdaile's; that is to say, to the account of Roscoe and Co. at Jones, Loyd, and Co. On the 25th of January Roscoe's house suspended payments. At that time the money was in the hands of Jones, Loyd, and Co. to their credit. They apprised Roscoe's house of the payment, and received for answer that the money was to be struck out of their credit, as they had received plaintiffs' order not to place it to their account. 1816. BREED and Others v. GREEN and 1816. BREED Upon plaintiffs' applying for the money to Jones, Loyd, and Co., they refused to pay it, alleging and Others that they had received it to the credit of Roscoe and Co., with whom they had an unsettled acAnother. count, and they must hold it for the benefit of all parties. v. GREEN and Raine, for the plaintiffs, contended, that defendants had acted contrary to the orders they had received, and were therefore bound to refund. It was their duty, either to have rejected the order to pay altogether, or to have executed it according to the specific directions which were sent. Scarlett, contrà.-There was an express direction to pay the money into some account, which must mean an existing account. Now the plaintiffs had no account with Jones, Loyd, and Co., but through the house of Roscoe and Co. LE BLANC, Justice.-If the plaintiffs intended to have an account opened with the London bankers, they ought to have given specific directions; they should have spoken in language plain and intelligible, which could not have misled. As they have not given any such specific directions, the defendants were justified in paying the money as they had been in the habit of doing. Upon his Lordship expressing this opinion, the plaintiffs' Counsel chose to be nonsuited. Raine and Littledale, for plaintiffs. Scarlett, Richardson, and F. Pollock, for defendants. THE DICAS . HIDES. March 28. An innkeeper, who has a li cense to let post horses, is the common a them to sh veller, though HE declaration stated that the defendant was an innkeeper, and licensed to let post horses; that on the 22d of December, 1815, plaintiff was not bound by received into his house as a guest and traveller; the that he requested the defendant to let him to hire post chaise and horses to convey him on his jour- he have a ney: 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 giyen him to produce his license. Plaintiff was on his road from Wigan to Manchester, and stopped at defendant's inn to change chaise and 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 If a guest have exclusive possession of a demand, and room, for the purpose of a onerates the may which he HE defendant was an innkeeper at Birmingham. On the 23d of January, 1813, Curtin brought goods with him to the inn for sale as he was travelling through the country. He staid at hop or warethe 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 sustain in key of this room in his possession, and used to lock the property 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 sive posses key for that purpose; but desired that the key lord is liable. 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! VOL. I. Р apartment. not an exclu sion, the land |