(2) A thing is done "in good faith" within the meaning of this Act, when it is in fact done honestly, whether it be done negligently or not.31

§ 1066. Innkeepers.

31

An innkeeper is one who holds himself out to the public as prepared to accommodate all travellers with the necessities for a temporary sojourn.32 This definition excludes a householder who for hire occasionally takes travellers into his house, but who refuses to accept others; 33 one who keeps a restaurant without rooms for lodgings;34 one who furnishes lodgings without food,35 one who keeps a boarding house for those planning to make a stay of long duration.36

On the other hand, one who keeps a hotel on the European plan is an innkeeper, though meals are separately paid for in a room resorted to not only by guests of the hotel, but by others, as a restaurant; 37 and an innkeeper who supplies food and lodging need not necessarily provide all conveniences, as for instance, accommodation for horses.38

1067. Who are guests.

The obligations of one who is not an innkeeper with reference to property intrusted to him, and even such obligations Trust Co. v. Rector, 76 N. J. Eq. 587, 75 Atl. 931, but not a casual bailee for hire. Alton v. New York Taxicab Co., 66 N. Y. Misc. 191, 121 N. Y. S. 271.

31 The only one of these definitions requiring comment is that of value, which follows the Negotiable Instruments Law (Sec. 25. See infra, § 1146), and applies the rule generally prevailing in regard to bills and notes to warehouse receipts. See also Williston, Sales, §§ 619, 620.

* See Cooley, Torts (3d ed.), § 1338. Jackson v. Virginia Hot Springs Co., 213 Fed. 969, 975, 130 C. C. A. 375, 381.

33 Howth v. Franklin, 20 Tex. 798, 73 Am. Dec. 218. See also McClaugherty v. Cline, 128 Tenn. 605, 163 S. W. 801.

34 Regina v. Rymer, 2 Q. B. D. 136; Lewis v. Hitchcock, 10 Fed. 4; Merrill v. Hodson, 88 Conn. 314, 91 Atl. 533, L. R. A. 1915 B. 481, Ann. Cas. 1916 D. 917; Sheffer v. Willoughby, 163 Ill. 518, 45 N. E. 253, 34 L. R. A. 464, 54 Am. St. Rep. 483; Kisten v. Hildebrand, 9 B. Mon. 72, 48 Am. Dec. 416.

35 Davis v. Gay, 141 Mass. 531, 6 N. E. 549; Kelly v. New York Commissioners, 54 How. Pr. 327. Cf. Huntley v. Stanchfield (Wis.), 169 N. W. 276.

36 Bonner v. Welborn, 7 Ga. 296. 37 Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557, 91 Am. Dec. 657; Nelson v. Johnson, 104 Minn. 440, 116 N. W. 828, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1259.

38 Kisten v. Hildebrand, 9 B. Mon. 72, 48 Am. Dec. 416.

of an innkeeper to one who is not a guest, are simply those of a bailee in regard to property intrusted to him. If the service is paid for directly or indirectly the bailment is for hire. The existence of obligations other than those ordinarily relating to bailed property must depend on the implication in fact of special contracts, or on the law of torts. But to his guests the innkeeper has a larger duty. It is, therefore, essential to determine who is a guest. He is a temporary sojourner who for a price paid, or to be paid, is furnished with either food or lodging or who is received for the purpose of being so furnished.39 One who makes an inn his home permanently or under a special contract for a long period is a boarder and not within the definition of a guest. 40 Nor is a friend invited gratuitously.41 When a porter engaged by a hotel solicits custom at a railway station and receives baggage from one who thereupon takes a vehicle to which he is directed by the porter, for transportation to the inn, the relation of guest begins when the baggage is delivered to the porter.42 if after the baggage is thus delivered the owner changes his mind and does not go to the inn, the innkeeper is under no liability as such for the baggage. 43 Whether securing accommodation for a servant or a horse at an inn will make one a guest, has given rise to a difference of opinion.44 Un

39 As to the necessity of the innkeeper's consent to receive a guest, see Gastenhofer v. Clair, 10 Daly, 265.

40 Moore v. Long Beach Development Co., 87 Cal. 483, 26 Pac. 92; Walling v. Potter, 35 Conn. 183; Vance v. Throckmorton, 5 Bush, 41, 96 Am. Dec. 327; Hall v. Pike, 100 Mass. 495; Lusk v. Belote, 22 Minn. 468; Wiser v. Chesley, 53 Mo. 547; Hancock v. Rand, 94 N. Y. 1, 46 Am. Rep. 112; Crapo v. Rockwell, 48 N. Y. Misc. 1, 94 N. Y. S. 1122; Meacham v. Galloway, 102 Tenn. 415, 52 S. W. 859, 46 L. R. A. 319, 73 Am. St. Rep. 886.

41 Beale, Innkeepers, § 125.

42 Coskery v. Nagle, 83 Ga. 696, 10 S. E. 491, 6 L. R. A. 483, 20 Am. St. 333; Dickinson v. Winchester, 4 Cush. 114, 50 Am. Dec. 760.

But

43 Tulane Hotel Co. v. Holohan, 112 Tenn. 214, 79 S. W. 113, 105 Am. St. 930. See also Strauss v. County Hotel &c. Co., 12 Q. B. D. 27.

44 That it will, see Yorke v. Grenaugh, 2 Ld. Raym. 866; Russell v. Fagan, 7 Houst. 389; Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pick. 280, 20 Am. Dec. 471; McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 316, 62 Am. Dec. 574. But see Hickman v. Thomas, 16 Ala. 666; Thickstun v. Howard, 8 Blackf. 535; Healey v. Gray, 68 Me. 489, 28 Am. Rep. 80; Grinnell v. Cook, 3 Hill, 485, 38 Am. Dec. 663; Ingallsbee v. Wood, 33 N. Y. 577, 88 Am. Dec. 409; Neale v. Crocker, 8 Up. Can. C. P. 224. In Brewer v. Caswell, 132 Ga. 563, 64 S. E. 674, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1107, 131 Am. St. Rep. 216, the court held that where the

doubtedly resort to an inn by a traveller even for a single meal makes him a guest; 45 and it has been said in England that the same is true of one who is not a traveller, 46 but it may be questioned whether this would be accepted in the United States.47

§ 1068. Obligations of innkeepers in regard to guests' property.

The obligations of an innkeeper to his guests with reference to their goods are generally classed as those of a bailee under a special duty and analogous to those of a carrier. It has been pointed out, however, that the obligation may arise where there is no bailment, as where the goods are in the guest's own keeping, and the guest need not have legal capacity to make a contract.49 Historically the innkeeper's liability seems properly regarded as a positive obligation imposed by law to protect guests from wrongs committed by the innkeeper's servants or by thieves or marauders from without.

owner of a mule left him in the stable of an inn where guests were allowed to leave their horses without saying he would return for dinner at the inn and would feed the mule himself, the relation of guest was clearly not established.

45 Orchard v. Bush, [1898] 2 Q. B. 284; Overstreet v. Moser, 88 Mo. App. 72; McDonald v. Egerton, 5 Barb. 560; Read v. Amidon, 41 Vt. 15, 98 Am. Dec. 560; Armstrong v. Yakima Hotel Co., 75 Wash. 477, 135 Pac. 233.

46 In Orchard v. Bush & Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 284, 287, Wills, J., said: "I confess I do not understnad why he should not be a guest if he uses the inn as an inn for the purpose merely of getting a meal there. There is not much to be said, upon the authorities, for the proposition that a person, in order to be a guest at the inn, must be a wayfarer or traveller. I quite agree that in olden times wayfarers were more often 'guests' than anybody else. The innkeeper's liability is said to

arise because he receives persons causâ hospitandi. I cannot see why he receives them less causâ hospitandi if he gives them refreshment for half a day, receiving them in the same way as other persons are received, than if they stay the night at his inn. It makes no difference that he receives a large number of people who only take a meal at the inn. He does receive them, and, as an innkeeper, and his liability as an innkeeper thereupon attaches in respect of them."

Kennedy, J., said: "Apart from the question whether he was a traveller or not, I am of opinion that if a man is in an inn for the purpose of receiving such accommodation as the innkeeper can give him, he is entitled to the protection the law gives to a guest at an inn."

47 See decisions distinguishing boarders at hotels from guests.

48 Beale on Innkeepers, § 182.
49 Id., § 112.

An analogy to carriers, which was not suggested until the nineteenth century, 50 seems, however, in many jurisdictions to have prevailed in recent years, and the innkeeper has been subjected to the same degree of liability as a carrier.51 But in other jurisdictions the innkeeper, unlike a carrier, is free from liability for loss by fire not caused by his fault, 52 and for loss from other causes involving neither negligence or misconduct of the innkeeper or his servants, nor a failure to afford protection from outside trespassers. 53 Under either view the innkeeper is liable for theft whether by the innkeeper's servant,54 or by a stranger. 55

§ 1069. Limitations of innkeeper's liability in regard to guests' property.

In order to give rise to extraordinary liability, the goods

in question while not necessarily in the actual possession of the innkeeper, 56 must be within his general control.57 Nor is he liable except as an ordinary bailee for merchandise brought for purposes of exhibition and sale by travelling salesmen and put in a separate room for that purpose.58 The innkeeper may establish reasonable rules, and if the guest has notice of these rules he must observe them, or suffer the consequences of loss caused by his failure to do so. 59 A common rule of this sort is one requiring a deposit of valuable property in a safe kept by the innkeeper. For goods so deposited the innkeeper is liable.60 Frequently statutes enact similar rules. Clothing and articles of ordinary daily use cannot be required by him to be deposited in this way.61 If the loss of the goods was caused or contributed to by the owner's own act or negligence, the innkeeper is not liable.62 Whatever degree of liability may be imposed upon him by law, he is not allowed to limit by contract.63

§ 1070. Innkeeper's obligations in regard to guests' comfort and safety.

The obligations of an innkeeper are imposed by law irrespective of contract, and may arise when no contract is or can be made.64 There is nevertheless frequently a con

58 Fay v. Pacific Imp. Co., 93 Cal. 253, 26 Pac. 1099, 28 Pac. 943, 16 L. R. A. 188, 27 Am. St. Rep. 198; Jalie v. Cardinal, 35 Wis. 118.

57 Vance v. Throckmorton, 5 Bush, 41, 96 Am. Dec. 327.

55 Burgess v. Clements, 4 M. & S. 306; Fisher v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 383, 30 L. Ed. 930, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 929.

59 Stanton v. Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88.

60 Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557, 91 Am. Dec. 657.

61 Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 302, 63 Am. Dec. 369.

62 Cashill v. Wright, 6 E. & B. 891; Elcox v. Hill, 98 U. S. 218, 25 L. Ed. 103; Watson v. Loughran, 112 Ga. 837, 38 S. E. 82; Spring v. Hager, 145 Mass.

186, 13 N. E. 479, 1 Am. St. Rep. 451.

63 Stanton v. Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88; Fuller v. Coats, 18 Ohio St. 343.

64 Beale, Innkeepers, § 111; Florence Hotel Co. v. Bumpas, 194 Ala. 69, 69 So. 56C, Ann. Cas. 1918 E. 252.

In Stanley v. Bircher, 78 Mo. 245, 248, the court said: "In this case the relation of host and guest which originated in contract, explains how the defendant's testator came to owe the plaintiff a duty. That duty, however, the law imposes. It is a public duty which is not defined by the contract. Neither can the proprietor relieve himself from that duty by contract. The action in truth is for a violation of the duty which the law imposes,