It is no defence that the traveller did not tender the price of his entertainment, or that the guest was travelling on Sunday, or that the innkeeper bad gone to bed, or that the guest refused to tell his name, otherwise if the guest was drunk, or was behaving in an improper manner ; Com. v. Naylor, 34 Pa. 86; 7 C. & P. 213. He may enforce rea sonable rules to prevent immorality, drunk enness or other offensive conduct, incon sistent with the proprieties of•life; -De Wolf v. Ford, 193 N. Y. 397, 86 N. E. 527, 127 Am. St. Rep. 969, 21 L. B. A. (N. S.) 860. The innkeeper may demand prepayment ; 9 Co. 87. He may not exclude persons from enter ing the inn and going into the public room on lawful business; Markham v. Brown, 8 N. H. 523, 31 Am. Dec. 209.
He must guard their goods with proper diligence. It has been held that he is liable only for the goods which are brought within the inn; 8 Co. 32 ; Scheffer v. Corson, 5 S. D. 233, 58 N. W. 555. A delivery of the goods into the personal custody of the innkeeper is not, however, necessary in order to make him responsible ; for, although he may not know anything of such goods, he is bound to pay for them if they are stolen or carried away, even by an unknown, person; Dig. 4, 9, 1; 3 B. & Ald. 283; 1 Sin. L. C. 47; Wash burn v. Jones, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 193; 8 Co. 32; Fay v. Imp. Co., 93 Cal. 253, 26 Pac. 1099, 28 Pac. 943, 16 L. R. A. 188, 27 Am. St. Rep. 198 ; Sowell v. De Wald, 2 Ind. App. 303, 28 N. E. 430, 50 Am. St. Rep. 240 ; Labold v. Hotel Co., 54 Mo. App. 567 ; Quinton v. Courtney, 2 N. C. 41; Houser v. Tully, 62 Pa. 92, 1 Am. Rep. 390. Thus, when a guest's luggage was, at his suggestion, taken to the commercial room, 8 B. & C. 9; and when a lady's reticule with money in it was left for a few minutes on a bed in her room ; 2 B. & Ad. 803 ; the innkeeper was held liable ; and if he receive the guest, the custody of the goods may be considered as an accessory, to the principal contract, and the money paid for the apartments as extending to the 'care of the box and portmanteau; Jones, Bailm. 94; 1 Bla. Com. 430; 2 Kent 458. The par ticular responsibility of an innkeeper does not extend to goods lost or stolen from a room occupied by a guest for a purpose of business distinct from his accommodation as guest, such as the exhibition of samples of merchandise; Fisher v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 383, 13 Sup. Ct. 929, 30 L. Ed. 930. The liability of an innkeeper is the same in character and extent with that of a common carrier ; Berk shire Woollen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 417; Manning v. Wells, 9 Humphr. (Tenn.) 746,. 51 Am. Dec. 688;, Mateer v. Brown, 1 Cal. 221, 52 Am. Dec. 303; 8 B. & C. 9;
Norcross v. Norcross, 53 Me. 163; Thickstun v. Howard, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 535.
He is an insurer of a guests's goods ; De Wolf v. Ford, 193 N. Y. 397, 86 N. E. 527, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 860, 127 Am. St. Rep. 969; he owes the dirty of safely keeping the prop erty of his guests; Rockhill v. Hotel Co., 237 Ill. 98, 86 N. E. 740, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 576. Even where the plaintiff's horse and wagon containing goods of value were destroyed in the night by fire, the cause of which was un known it was held that the innkeeper was liable; Hulett v. Swift, 33 N. Y. 571, 88 Am. Dec. 405; contra, Cutler v. Bonney, 30 Mich. 259, 18 Am. Rep. 127, n. See 6 L. R. A. 483, n. It is held that he is prima facie liable for the loss of goods; Rockhill v. Hotel Co., 237 Ill. 98, 86 N. E. 740, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 576 ; Watt v. Kilbury, 53 Wash. 446, 102 Pac. 403.
His liability does not cease as soon as the guest has paid his bill and left ; the guest has a reasonable time to remove his baggage ; Kaplan v. Titus, 64 Misc. 81, 117 N. Y. Supp. 944. An innkeeper is liable for a valise de livered to the hotel porter at leaving ; Rock hill v. Hotel Co., 237 Ill. 98, 86 N. E. 740, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 576. He is liable for bag gage entrusted by a guest to a hotel porter sent to a railroad station to solicit guests; Coskery v. Nagle, 83 Ga. 696, 10 S. E. 491, 6 L. R. A. 483, 20 Am. St. Rep. 333 ; but not if he changes his mind and does not go to the hotel ; Tulane Hotel Co. v. Holohan, 112 Tenn. 214, 79 S. W. 113, 105 Am. St. Rep. 930, 2 Ann. Cas. 345 ; or merely goes there, receives a telegram and leaves without regis tering; L. R. 12 Q. B. Div. 27.
He is responsible for the acts of his domes tics and servants, as well as for the acts of his other guests, if the goods are stolen or lost ; Berkshire Woollen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 417 ; McDonald v. Edgerton, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 560; Labold v. Hotel Co., 54 Mb. App. 567 ; but he is not responsible for any tort or injury done by his servants or others to the person of his guest, without his own co-operation or consent; 8 Co. 32. But it has been held that he is liable to a female guest foCa servant's unjustifiable acts in the course of his employment in forcing his way into her room while she was in scant attire, accusing her of immoral conduct and order ing her to leave the hotel ; De Wolf v. Ford, 193 N. Y. 397, 86 N. E. 527, 127 Am. St. Rep. 969, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 860; he must exer cise reasonable care that neither he nor his servants shall by uncivil, harsh, or cruel treatment, destroy the comfort or peace of the guest ; id.