Odger's English Common Law

INNKEEPERS, &C. 641
INNKEEPERS, &C.
The common law held an innkeeper responsible for the
safety of the property of his gnest, whether money or goods.
He has a right to make such charges as will compensate him
for the responsibility thus imposed on him, and he has a lien
on such property for such charges. 2 " By the custom of the
realm innkeepers are obliged to keep the goods and chattels of
their guests who are within their inns without subtraction or
loss day and night, so that no damage in any manner shall
thereby come to their guests from the negligence of the inn-
keeper or his servants." 8 " An innkeeper is prima, facie liable
for any loss not occasioned by the act of God or the King's
enemies, although he may be exonerated where the guest
chooses to have his goods under his own care." 4
But this
liability only attaches to the keeper of a " common inn "
—
i.e.,
of a house where the traveller is furnished with everything
for which he has occasion whilst upon his way—and in respect
only of such goods as are received by him in that character ;
if not so received, he is liable only as an ordinary bailee.
The liability of an innkeeper at common law has been mate-
rially diminished by the Innkeepers Act, 1863, 5 which applies
to every " hotel, inn, tavern, public-house or other place of
refreshment, the keeper of which is now by law responsible
for the goods and property of his guests." Section 1 enacts
that no innkeeper shall be liable to a greater amount than the
sum of £30 for the loss of or injury to any goods or property
brought to his inn by a guest—not including a horse or other
live animal or its gear, &c, or any carriage—except (i.) where
the goods or property shall have been stolen, lost or injured
exceptions stated in the judgment which will well nigh eat up the rule. Executory
contracts are said to be excepted, so are sales in retail shops or where
so that there may be difficulty in finding cases to which
there is a usage of trade ;
the rule would practically apply."
1 Kent v. Shuchard (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 803. As to an innkeeper's responsibility for
the safety of his premises, see Maolenan v. Segar, [1917] 2 K. B. 325.
» See 41 & 42 Vict. c. 38, s. 1 ; and Angus v. McLachlan (1883), 23 Ch. D. 330 ;
Gordon v. Sllber (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 491 ; Robins v. Gray, [1895] 2 Q. B. 78, 501.
s Per cur. in Calye's Case (1587), 8 Rep. 32 a ; 1 Smith, L. C, 12th ed., 131 ;
and see Strauss v. County Hotel Co. (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 27.
' Per Bayley, J., in Richmond v. Smith (1828), 8 B. & C. at p. 11 ; and see
Oppenheim v. White Lion Motel Co. (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 515 ; Herbert v. Markwell
(1881), 45 L. T. 649.
5 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41.
B.C.L.
41