Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

How kept.

Sale of horse.

keep, but not for the keep of the others; so that if the hosteller permit him to take away all but one, he cannot retain that until the expense of keeping the whole is paid, but must deliver it up on tender of the amount due for its own keep.*

*

The hosteller is entitled to feed the horse during the time of its detention, and to charge the amount in the account for which he detains it, and that notwithstanding an order from the owner not to do so; for otherwise his security would fail.t

The hosteller may not ride, or otherwise use, the horse he so detains, so as to derive any advantage from it; but I apprehend that he may, and ought, to ride it for the purpose of preserving its health.ţ

I apprehend that whilst the horse is detained it ought to be kept in the stable, unless it was before kept at pasture by the directions of the guest.

If the owner secretly take the horse, so detained, I apprehend that it would amount to felony, that is, horse stealing; for the hosteller is a bailee, having a special property in it, with a qualified interest.

It has been said, that when the horse has caused the hosteller an expense exceeding its value, it may be sold to indemnify him §: but * 1 Bulstr. 207.

+ Gilbert v. Berkley, R. t. Holt. 366.

Watbroke v. Griffith, Mo. 876, 877. Jones v. Thurloe, 8 Mod. 172. Jones v. Pearle, Str. 556.

Hosteller's ca. Yelv. 66, 67.

the weight of cases is against this proposition as a general rule.*

In London and Exeter there is a custom that the hosteller may appraise the horse, and also its food, by the valuation of four of his neighbours; and if the value of the food exceed that of the horse, he may take it to himself or sell it.t

Unless, it is said, the horse belong to one person, and be taken to the inn by a stranger.‡

Mountague (Recorder) certified the custom of London thus: If one brings a horse to an inn, leaves him there and goes his way, and the horse eats up more than his price, by the custom of London the innkeeper may sell this horse to pay himself: but not if the debt was for other horses, as if one do bring many horses into an inn, and afterwards takes all of them away but one, the innkeeper cannot sell this one horse for payment of that which was due to him for the other horses, notwithstanding this debt doth amount to more than the price of this horse; but every horse is to be sold by the custom to satisfy the debt due for his own meat only. The horse must be praised by the innkeeper's next neighbour. The custom was held good.§

It appears to me that the custom would be

* Watbroke v. Griffith, Mo. 876-7, Poph. 127. 1 Bulstr. 207. Jones v. Thurloe, 8 Mod. 172. Jones v. Pearle, Stra. 556. 2 Rol. Abr. 85.

+ 2 Rol. Abr. 85. Watbroke v. Griffith, Mo. 876-7. 1 Bulstr. 207. Bac. Abr. Inns.

2 Rol. Abr. 85.

§ Mosse v. Townsend, 1 Bulstr. 207.

Action for bill.

Stealing from inn.

bad, for that the appraisement is to be by the next neighbour, who may be unacquainted, particularly in London, with the value of horses and their provender; but it was said, by Mountague, C. J. (who seems to be the same person who certified the custom as Recorder,) that "The custom of London is good and reasonable, how long to stay, not till he eats out more than his head; the innkeeper may sell him presently, and this is justifiable.”*

The innkeeper may maintain an action in assumpsit for the amount of his bill, although he detains the defendant's horse or goods as a security; for that is not available in satisfaction of it. And it is unnecessary to shew a special agreement as the foundation of the action, for the law presumes an undertaking to satisfy reasonable charges.†

If an innkeeper or victualler bring an action of debt for the sum due to him for victuals delivered to his guest, the guest may wage his law, for the victualler or innkeper is not compellable to deliver victuals, till he is paid for them in hand; and therewith agrees 10 Hen. 7. 8. a.t

A guest arising in the night and carrying goods out of his chamber into another room, and thence into the stable, is guilty of felony, although there was no trespass in the taking.§

*Robinson v. Walter, 3 Bulstr. 270.

+ Watbroke v. Griffith, Mo. 876-7.

Saunders v.

Plummer, Orl. Bridg. 227. Hostler's ca. Yelv. 67.

2 Ld. Ray. 866. Vide ante p. 78.

Pinchon's ca. 9 Rep. 87. b.

1 Hawk. P. C. c. 32. s. 18. Vide ante p. 80.

So a guest who hath a piece of plate set before him at an inn, is guilty of felony in taking it away.*

CAP. VI.

MISCELLAneous.

brewers.

Ir a brewer supply a publican, the person Contracts to whom the licence is granted, with beer on with the primary credit of a third person, as, if he do so on condition of such third person accepting a bill of exchange for the amount, he cannot recover the money, for this would tend to fraud on the excise; but he may recover the amount from a third person, who is merely a security and liable in case of the insufficiency of the publican.+

The contract was, that the publican should take all his beer from his landlord, a brewer, or pay an advanced rent for the house.

It was admitted, that the action was not maintainable unless the brewer had supplied his tenant with beer of a fair merchantable quality, such as ought to have given satisfaction to his customers. And that if he supplied other, the tenant was at liberty to continue to deal with other brewers:

The plaintiff proved by other publicans, that he had supplied them with good beer, since the time the defendant discontinued purchasing * 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 33, s. 6.

+ Meux v. Humphries, 3 Car. & Paine, 79.

Assignment of inn.

Insurance

from him. It was held, that this was not sufficient, but that he ought to prove, from defendant's customers, or otherwise, that the beer he had furnished to the defendant was good; but on the contrary, defendant shewed, that such beer had created dissatisfaction among his customers. Verdict for the defendant. *

If a publican contract with another to assign to him his business and also his licences, and they enter into a bond to complete the contract on a certain day, under penalty; and he is not prepared at the time to transfer the licences, the purchaser may recover back his deposit, although he tendered only a checque at the day, for the residue of the purchase-money; but he cannot recover the penalty on such a tender although it be the usual method of completing such purchases.†

1

Grigsley's coffee-house had been insured acof inns, &c. cording to the common risk only, it was objected that the policy of that insurance office included the business of an innkeeper among those which were attended with double hazard; and that this must be considered an inn, as people from the country lodged there as at an inn.

Lord Ellenborough.—Grigsley's coffee-house, I happen to know, is like any other coffee-house in the metropolis; and I think a coffee-house is not an inn within the meaning of the policy. Horses, waggons, and coaches come to an inn; there are stables and out-houses attached to it; people are going to them with lights at all hours;

* Holcomb v. Hewson, 2 Camp, N. P. 391-2.
+ Clarke v. King, 2 Car. & Paine, 286-7.

« AnteriorContinua »