INNKEEPER. The keeper of a common inn for the lodging and entertainment of travellers and passengers, their horses and attendants, for a reasonable compensation. Bac. Abr. Inns, etc.; Story, Bailm. § 475. Any one who makes it his business to enter tain travellers and passengers, and provide lodging and necessaries for them, their hors es and attendants, is an innkeeper. Edw. Bailm. § 450 ; even though the house is sit uated on enclosed grounds; Fay v. Imp. Co., 93 Cal. 253, 26 Pac. 1099, 28 Pac. 943, 1614. R. A. 188, 27 Am. St. Rep. 198. But one who entertains strangers occasionally, although he may receive compensation for it, is not an innkeeper ; State v. Matthews, 19 N. C. 424; Bonner v. Welborn, 7 Ga. 296; 1 Morr. 184.
See GUEST; BOARDER. It is not necessary that he should furnish accommodations for horses and carriages ; 3 B. & Ald. 283; the keeper of a tavern; id.; and of a hotel; 2 Chitty 484 ; is an innkeeper. So is one who keeps a hotel on what is called the European plan, furnishing lodging to guests, and keep ing an eating-house where they may purchase meals at their option ; Krohn v. Sweeney, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 200. But the keeper of a mere restaurant is not an innkeeper if he only furnishes meals to his guests; Carpenter v. Taylor, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 193. Nor is the keep er of a coffee-house, nor of a boarding house, nor lodging-house; 8 Co. 32 ; 2 E. & B. 144; Hall v. Pike, 100 Mass. 495 ; Jalie v. Cardi nal, 35 Wis. 118. One who receives lodgers and boards them under a special contract for a limited time, or who lets rooms to guests by the day or week, and does not fur nish them entertainment, is not an innkeep er ; Cromwell v. Stephens, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 15. See Moore v. Development Co., 87 Cal. 483, 26 Pac. 92, 22 Am. St. Rep. 265. Where the plaintiff attended a ball given by an inn keeper, stabled his horse at the inn, drank and paid for liquors, and paid for his ticket of admission to the ball, it was held that the relationship of innkeeper and guest did not exist; Fitch v. Caster, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 126. Where one boarded with his family at a ho tel in New York, paying a specified amount for his rooms, and an additional amount for board if he took his meals regularly, and if not, paying for whatever he ordered at the restaurant attached to the hotel, it was held that the innkeeper was liable for personal property stolen from the plaintiff's room; Hancock v. Rand, 17 Hun (N. Y.) 279 (crit icized in 20 Alb. L. J. 64, citing many cases); and see Lusk v. Belote, 22 Minn. 468. Where one merely leaves his horse with an innkeep er, the relation of innkeeper and guest does not exist ; Healey v. Gray, 68 Me. 489, 28 Am. Rep. 80; so where he leaves goods at the inn without indicating any intention to become a guest ; Toub v. Schmidt, 60 Hun 409, 15 N. Y. Supp. 616 ; so when a guest paid his bill and left the inn, having deposited money with a clerk, to be kept till his return; Whitemore v. Haroldson, 2 Lea (Tenn.) 312. It terminates when the guest delivers his baggage to a porter to be checked for safe keeping, the porter having no authority to receive it, and pays his bill, and in his ab sence the baggage is stolen ; Glenn v. Jack
son, 93 Ala. 342, 9 South. 259, 12 L. R. A. 382.
The business of an innkeeper at common law is of a quasi public character invested with many privileges and burdened with many responsibilities; De Wolf v. Ford, 193 N. Y. 397, 86 N. E. 527, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 860, 127 Am. St. Rep. 969. They are not in surers of the safety of their guests. They are bound only to reasonable care. They are not liable for acts of their servants be yond the scope of their employment ; Clancy v. Barker, 131 Fed. 161, 66 C. C. A. 469, 69 L. R. A. 653 (citing 47 L. J. C. P. 598; Weeks v. McNulty, 101 Tenn. 499, 48 S. W. 809, 43 L. R. A. 185, 70 Am. St. Rep. 693 ; Sheffer v. Willoughby, 163 III. 518, 45 N. E. 253, 34 L. R. A. 464, 54 Am. St. Rep. 483 ; Stanley v. Bircher's Ex'r, 78 Mo. 245, 248; Curtis v. Dinneen, 4 Dak. 245, 30 N. W. 148), Thayer, C. J., dissented upon the ground that the re lation of an innkeeper to his guest is prac tically like that of a common carrier to a passenger, citing Clancy v. Barker, 71 Neb. 83, 98 N. W. 440, 103 N. W. 446, 69 L. R. A. 642, 115 Am. St. Rep. 559, 8 Ann. Cas. 682. He must protect a guest against third per sons ; a fortiori, he must protect him from injuries from his servants, and since the servants are provided, among other things for the purpose of protecting guests, every injury inflicted upon the guest by the serv ant, either intentionally or negligently, is a breach of his duty of protection and renders the innkeeper liable to the guest; Clancy v. Barker, 71 Neb. 83, 98 N. W. 440, 103 N. W. 446, 69 L. R. A. 642, 115 Am. St. Rep. 559, 8 Ann. Cas. 682 ; Curran v. Olson, 88 Minn. 307, 92 N. W. 1124, 60 L. R. A. 733, 97 Am. St. Rep. 517; contra, Rahmel v. Lehndorff, 142 Cal. 681, 76 Pac. 659, 65 L. R. A. 88, 100 Am. St. Rep. 554. In Rommel v. Schambach er, 120 Pa. 579, 11 Atl. 779, 6 Am. St. Rep. 732, the same rule was applied where the assault (a practical joke) was by the plain tiff's drunken companion in a saloon, but in full view of the defendant. He is bound to take in and receive all travellers and way faring persons, and to entertain them, if he can accommodate them, for a reasonable compensation ; Wand. Inns, 46; 3 B. & Ald. 285; 4 Exch. 367. See Willis v. McMahan, 89 Cal. 156, 26 Pac. 649. For a refusal to do so he is liable civilly and criminally ; 7 C. & P. 213. While he must accept all proper per sons if he has room, he need not assign a guest to any particular apartment ; but a room once assigned to a guest is his until he gives it up, subject to the right of access of the innkeeper at all reasonable times and for all reasonable purposes ; De Wolf v. Ford, 193 N. Y. 397, 86 N. E. 527, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 860, 127 Am. St. Rep. 969. If all rooms are full he need not receive guests; [1902] 1 K. B. 696.