(r) Thus, where a traveller went into an inn, and desired to have his luggage taken into the commercial room, to which he resorted, from whence it was stolen, the court held, that the innkeeper was responsible, although he proved that, according to the usual practice of his house, the luggage would have been deposited in the guest's bedroom, and not in the commercial room, if no order had been given respecting it. Richmond v. Smith, 8 B. & C. 9. See further Epps v. Hinds, 27 Miss. 667.

(s) Anonymous, Moore, 78 pl. 207; Calye's case, 8 Rep. 32. In the case of Burgess v. Clements, 4 M. & Sel. 906, Lord Ellenborough says: "I agree that if an innkeeper gives the key of the chamber to his guest, this will not dispense with his own care, or discharge him from his general responsibility as innkeeper. But if there be evidence that the guest accepted the key, and took on himself the care of his goods, surely it is for the jury to determine whether this evidence of his receiving the key proves that be did it animo custodiendi, and with a purpose of exempting the innkeeper, or whether he took it merely, because the landlord forced it on him, of for the sake of securing greater privacy, in order to prevent persons from intruding themselves into his room." (t) Calye's case, 8 Rep. 82.

1 See Oppenheim v. White Lion Hotel Co. L. R. 6 C. P. 515, as to the liability of an innkeeper under such circumstances, if a guest negligently omits to lock the door.

It is common for large hotels or inns to have safes for holding valuable property, and to give notice to guests that they will not be responsible for such property, as money, jewels or ornaments, unless delivered to them to be put into the safe. Such notice would be reasonable, and it is sustained by a statute in New York, passed in 1855; and would undoubtedly be held generally to limit the responsibility of the innkeeper. (uu) 1 So it has been held under a similar statute in Wisconsin, and the rule applied to a watch and chain, although the guest needs the constant use of such an article, and usually keeps it with him. (uv) Some doubt may be thrown on this doctrine by a recent case in New York. (ux)

A distinction has been taken, and appears to rest on good reason, between those effects of a traveller not immediately requisite to his comfort, and those essential to his personal convenience, and which it is necessary that he should have constantly about him; so that, though personally notified to deposit the latter with the innkeeper for safety, if he fail to comply, the innkeeper will still be responsible. (v)

If the goods are once within the custody of the innkeeper, and while there, are lost, the presumption of law is, that they are lost through his negligence. (w)

No especial delivery or direction of the goods to the innkeeper is necessary to charge him; for it is enough if they are fairly, according to common practice, within his custody. (x)

(u) Sanders v. Spencer, Dyer, 266 b; Calye's case, 8 Rep. 82.

(uu) For cases under this statute on usage, see Bendetson v. French, 44 Barb. 81; and Finkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 667.

(uv) Stewart v. Parsons, 24 Wise. 241.

(ux) Krohn v. Sweeney, 2 Daly, 200.

(v) Profilet v. Hall, 16 La. An. 624.

(w) See the cases in the former notes, and Kisten v. Hildebrand, 9 B. Mon. 72; Sibley v. Aldrich, 88 N. H. 668.

(x) McDonald v. Edgerton. 6 Barb. 560; Bennett v. Mellor, 6 T. R. 278. Nor is it material whether the property intrusted to the innkeeper consists of goods or of money. Kent v. Shuckard, 2 B. & Ad. 803. Nor is it limited to any particular amount. Berkshire Woollen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. 417. See the facts of this case stated, post, p. * 162, note (j). Fletcher, J., in reference to the point, says: "The responsibility of innkeepers for the safety of the goods and

1 But an innkeeper's liability is not affected by such a notice unless it be shown that the guest read it, that his attention was called to its contents, or that he wilfully avoided learning the same. Bodwell v. Bragg, 29 la. 232. - In Ramaley v. Leland, 43 N. Y. 539, it was held that a "watch worn and used in the ordinary manner " is not a "jewel or ornament," within the meaning of a statute under which an innkeeper, by providing a safe and posting a notice of that fact, is exonerated from liability for the loss of "money, jewels, and ornaments."

•Thus, if he engages to take passengers "free" from a station, and a passenger gets into a hack which, by agreement with the owners, may be used by him for that purpose, and loses a trunk in that hack, the innkeeper is liable. (y) If a servant of the innkeeper take the luggage of the passenger to carry it to the cars, the innkeeper continues responsible for it, until delivery to the cars. (yy)

It is said, that if the innkeeper refuses to receive the party as a guest, he is not liable for any loss of his goods. But he cannot so refuse, unless his house is full, and he is actually unable to receive him. (z) And if on false pretences he refuses, he is liable to an action. (a) And it is said that he may even be indicted therefor. (b)

An innkeeper may refuse to receive a disorderly guest, or require him to leave his house. (c) He is not bound to examine into the reasonableness of the guest's requirements, if the guest be possessed of his reason, and is not a minor. (d) And while travellers are entitled to proper accommodations, they have no right to select a particular apartment, or use it for purposes other than those for which it is designed. (e) But an innkeeper has no right to prevent the driver of a line that is a rival to one which favors the innkeeper, from entering his house for lawful and reasonable purposes. (f)

Nothing need be, nor usually is, paid for the goods separately. (g) The compensation paid by the owner for his entertainment covers the care of the property. The custody of the goods is accessory to the principal contract.