BOARDING-HOUSE.--An agreement for board and lodging need not be in writing, and a boarder or lodger is entitled to the use of all the neces sary conveniences of a dwelling-house. Where a lump sum is paid for the board and lodging, and the boarder has no exclusive occupation of any particular room, or part thereof, the boarding-house keeper cannot distrain for arrears of payment of such lump sum ; but it would be otherwise if the boarder had such an exclusive occupation as aforesaid, and a certain portion of the total sum payable by him was paid and appropriated specifically in respect of the rent thereof. A boarding-house keeper differs from an innkeeper, in that the former keeps a house which is private and closed to the free entry of the public, receives guests who will make a more or less permanent stay, charges usually by the week or month, and makes a separate contract with every person received ; whilst the latter keeps a house into which the public have & free right of entry, receives guests as a rule for a temporary sojourn, charges usually by the night, and without making any special contract, provides board and lodging for all-comers at a reasonable price. Accordingly, the rights and liabilities as between a boarding-house keeper and his lodgers differ from those as between an innkeeper and his guests; for example, the boarding-house keeper has not, like the innkeeper, a lien upon the goods of his lodgers in respect of any moneys due and,in arrear, and should he attempt to detain the goods for such a reason the lodger may obtain an order from a magistrate for their delivery to him.
There is a fallacy in the suggestion that because a boarding or lodging house keeper does not come under the full liability of an innkeeper, he is exempt from all obligation to take care of his lodger's goods. The instance
in Calye's case of a man " lodged with another who is not an innholder, upon request, if he be robbed in his house by the servants of him who lodged him or any other he shall not answer for it," does not establish it, and is not inconsistent with a duty to take ordinary care. The object of the illustration is merely to show that a guest lodging with another is not entitled to the same degree of protection as he would be entitled to in an inn. But the instance confers no immunity upon lodging-house keepers from such liability as would otherwise arise from their receiving into their charge for reward a guest and his baggage. Nor does there seem any reason in principle why they should be so exempt. The general control of the house must be in the keeper. By the nature of the arrangement itself the custody of the lodger's effects must be in him when the lodger is not in his room, and the consideration paid ought as a matter of business to secure some protection to the lodger where the ordinary conditions to which he is expected to conform put it out of his own power to look after his effects himself. There is no reason why there should be a presumption of immunity in his case from the common duty of a person accepting a charge to exercise at least ordinary care ; a fortiori where he undertakes it for reward. The guest and baggage are both in a house of which he has the control, and his obligations to both of them arise in the same way out of the relation itself. The onus lies on those who affirm there is no duty (per Master of the Rolls in Scarborough v. Cosgrove, following Dame?) v. Richardson). And see BAILMENT ; LODGER.