The innkeeper will be excused whenever the loss has occurred through the fault of the guest, the act of God, or of the public enemy; 4 M. & S. 306 ; Hadley v. Upshaw, 27 Tex. 547, 86 Am. Dec.. 654 ; Elcox v. Hill, 98 U. S. 218, 25 L. Ed. 103. An omission on the part of the guest to lock his door will not necessarily prevent his recovery ; 6 H. & N. 265; Classen v. Leopold, 2 Sweeny (N. Y.) 705. Where a guest was given a room tem porarily and in his absence his baggage was placed iu the hall, the innkeeper was held liable for its loss; [1891] 2 Q. B. 11. When the guest misleads the innkeeper as to the value of a package and thus throws him off his guard, it has been held that he cannot re cover ; Edw: Bailm. § 466. See Bendetson v. French, 46 N. Y. 266. The failure of a guest to inform an innkeeper that his valise placed in the cloak or baggage room, contains val uables, is not negligence; Bowell v. De Wald, 2 Ind. App. 303, 28 N. E. 430, 50 Am. St. Rep. 240; guest may retain personal custody of necessary wearing apparel and jewelry worn daily, for which the innkeeper becomes lia ble ; v. Imp. Co., 93 Cal. 253, 26 Pac. 1009, 28 Pac. 943, 16 L. R. A. 188, 27 Am. St, Rep. 198; a guest may recover for the lose of goods brought into the inn in the usual manner ; Epps v. Hinds, 27 Miss. 657, 61 Am. Dec. 528 ; Sasseen v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242.
An innkeeper may make reasonable regula tions as to the manner in which he will receive and keep goods ; Orange County Banl, v. Brown, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 114, 24 Am. Dec. 129. He must furnish reasonable ac commodations. See 8 M. & W. 269. When the proprietor of a hotel employs a servant to receive and keep the property of guests while at meals, his liability for the default of this servant in the custody of property so received is not affected by the fact that he has also provided a check-room for the safe keeping of such property; Labold v. Hotel Co., 54 Mo. App. 567.
The innkeeper is entitled to a just com pensation for his care and trouble in taking care of his guest and his property ; and, to enable him to obtain this, the law Invests him with spme peculiar privileges, giving him a lien upon the goods brought into the inn by the guest, and, it has been said, upon the person of his guest (contra, 3 M. & W. 248), for his compensation ; 3 B. & Ald. 287; see Mowers v. Fethers, 61 N. Y. 34, 19 Am. Rep. 244; Dunlap v. Thorne, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 213; McDaniels v. Robinson, 26 Vt. 335, 62 Am. Dec. 574 ; 3 M. & W. 248 ; Cook v. Kane, 13 Or. 482, 11 Pac. 226, 57 Am. Rep. 28 ; and this though the goods belong to a third per son, if the innkeeper was ignorant of the fact; Schoul., Bailm. 326 ; 12 Q. B. 197; Young v. Kimball, 23 Pa. 193 ; Fox v. Mc Gregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41; Covington v. Newberger, 99 N. C. 523, 6 S. E. 205; Man
ning v. Hollenbeck, 27 Wis. 202 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Miller, 52' Minn. 516,55 N. W. 56, 21 L. R. A. 229, 38 Am. St. Rep. 568; a lien was also held to attach upon the goods of the wife ; 25 Q. B. Div. 491. Sewing machines were sent by his principal to a commercial traveller while he was at an inn, to be used in the course of business for sale to cus tomers in the neighborhood. The innkeeper had express notice that they were the prop erty of the employer but he received them as the baggage of the traveller, who left the inn without paying his bill ; held that the innkeeper had a lien on the goods for the amount of the bill ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 501. The court below considered that the question of knowledge was immaterial, because "the goods in question were of a kind which a commercial traveller would in the ordinary course carry about with him to the inns at which he put up as part of the regular ap paratus of his calling, and which the inn keeper would consequently be bound to re ceive into his inn and to take care of while they were there." At common law this lien could be enforced only by legal proceedings, and not by a sale; Fox v. McGregor, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41; Edw. Bailm. § 476. This has been changed in New York by statute. As to detaining the horse of a guest, see Peet v. McGraw, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 654 ; Mason v. Thompson, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 280, 20 Am. Dec. 471. The landlord may also bring an action for the recovery of his compensation. Where an innkeeper owes his guest for labor more than the guest owes for board, he has no lien;• Hanlin v. Walters, 3 Colo. App. 519, 34 Pac. 686. An innkeeper's lien does not attach to goods in possession of one who is received as a boarder, and not as a guest or traveller ; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Mil ler, 52 Minn. 516, 55 N. W. 56, 21 L. R. A. 229, 38 Am. St. Rep. 568.
An innkeeper in a town through which lines of stages pass has no right to exclude the driver of one of these lines from his yard and the common public rooms where travellers are usually placed, who comes there at proper hours, and in a proper man ner, to solicit passengers for his coach and without doing any injury to the innkeeper ; Markham v. Brown, 8 N. H. 523, 31 Am. Dec. 209.
The common-law liability of innkeepers has been changed in England and in most of the states by statute which provides that the innkeeper shall not be liable for money, etc., if he provides a safe for safe-keeping, and duly notifies his guests thereof. If due no tice is not given, the common-law liability re mains ; Holstein v. Phillips, 146 N. C. 366, 59 S. E. 1037, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 475, 14 Ann. Cas. 323 ; L. R. 2 Ex. Div. 463. If, under the statute, the guest delivers the articles to the innkeeper, the latter's liability is not af fected by the statute.