NOTICE TO QUIT, AND TURNING OUT.
Doubtless many an anxious housekeeper is hurrying rapidly through the
pages of this book to discover whether or no Tom Jones’ piece of
entomological information was correct; but I shall not enlighten them on
the point, for this is a work on legal subjects, and cannot be taken up
with recounting investigations concerning the habits of such small
things as insects. Saith not the ancient maxim: “_De minimis non curat
lex_”?
We had, however, other things to think about ere morning’s light again
illuminated the eastern sky. Scarcely had we settled ourselves for the
night when my wife started up, exclaiming:
“Hear the loud alarum bells! What a tale of terror their turbulency
tells! In the startled ear of night how they scream out their affright
in a clamorous appealing to the mercy of the fire--in a mad
expostulation with the deaf and frantic fire! What a tale their terror
tells of despair! How they clang, and clash, and roar!”
“Ha! and well for us that their twanging and their clanging have aroused
us; for see! the house opposite is all wrapped in flames, and the wind
is driving right toward us!”
Ah! then throughout our house there was hurrying to and fro, and
gathering tears, and tremblings of distress, and cheeks all pale,
which, but ten minutes past, pressed the soft pillows with their
loveliness; and there were sudden snatchings of such as by chance lay
within reach, and leaving things which ne’er might be regained; and
there was rushing in hot haste--the men, the chattering women, and the
pattering child, went pouring forward with impetuous speed, and swiftly
showed in the back yard in _robes de nuit_.
I jumped into my pantaloons; fortunately, they were not like those of
Monseigneur d’Artois, nor was I as particular as his highness; four tall
lackeys had to hold him up in the air every morning, that he might fall
into his breeches without vestige of wrinkle, and from them the same
four, in the same way but with more effort, had to deliver him at night.
We found shelter in the hospitable mansion of old Mrs. Jones. At the
expense of our friends, we thatched ourselves anew with the “dead
fleeces of sheep, the bark of vegetables, the entrails of worms, the
hides of oxen or seals, the felt of furred beasts, and walked down
stairs moving rag screens, over-heaped with shreds and tatters raked
from the charnel-house of nature” to partake of the morning meal.
At breakfast, Mrs. Lawyer remarked, in anything but lugubrious tones:
“Well, Mr. Jones, we have got rid of those rooms without much trouble.”
Tom shook his head; so my wife asked:
“Why do you do that?”
“Because I am not quite sure that you are yet quit of my friend, Mr.
Screwhard, your landlord,” was the reply.
“What do you mean?” queried my wife.
“Ask your respected husband; he knows more about such matters than I
do.”
In reply to my wife’s questioning glance, I said: “I am afraid it is
rather too soon to rejoice over the matter. We must pay rent until we
can get rid of our liability by a regular notice to quit.”
“But we can’t occupy the place.”
“That makes no difference.”[450]
“Then you had no provision in your lease exempting you in case of fire,”
remarked Jones.
“Unfortunately, not.”
“But why should we pay when we cannot use the place?” asked my wife,
growing warm.
“The rule is, my dear, that when the law imposes a duty upon one and he
is prevented performing it without any fault on his part, and he has no
one to whom he may look for satisfaction, the courts will excuse the
non-performance; but when a man voluntarily takes a duty or charge upon
himself he must perform his contract, come what may, because he might
have provided against all accidents in his agreement.”
“And, you stupid! you did not have the lease properly drawn!”
“Exactly so, my female Solomon,” I replied, indignantly.
“Well, I must say,” said Mrs. L., “that I fear I am bound for life to
“‘A wretch so empty, that if e’er there be
In nature found the least vacuity,
’Twill be in him.’”
“Another reason is,” broke in Jones, anxious to throw oil upon the
troubled waters, “that in the case of furnished lodgings, as in the case
of a house, the rent is deemed to issue out of the land[451]--none of it
out of the furniture[452]--so that the landlord can distrain for the
whole rent;[453] and even were he to turn the tenant out, no
apportionment could be made for the goods.[454] The law makes no
difference between lodgers and other tenants as to the payment of their
rents, or turning them out of possession.”
“Pray tell me, then, how much notice must we give?” demanded Mrs. Lawyer
in tones which would lead one to imagine that she provided all the
capital necessary to run the family machine.
Jones replied: “If the hiring of the apartments be from half year to
half year, half a year’s notice to quit must be given; if from quarter
to quarter, a quarter’s notice; if from month to month, a month’s
notice; if from week to week, a week’s notice; and if a lodger leaves
without giving such notice he is liable for the rent for a half year,
or a quarter, or a month, or a week, as the case may be.”[455]
“Still,” I said, anxious to contradict somebody, “it has been ruled by a
very learned judge that in the case of an ordinary weekly tenancy a
week’s notice to quit is not implied as part of the contract unless
there be usage to that effect, but that such a tenancy will cease at the
end of the term without any notice; in fact, he said that he was not
aware that it had ever been decided that in the case of an ordinary
weekly or monthly tenancy a month’s or week’s notice to quit must be
given. It is to be regarded as a tenancy for a week or a month rather
than as a tenancy from week to week, or month to month, determinable by
notice. Were it otherwise, such tenancies would, in almost all cases,
necessarily continue for a double period, which might be inconvenient to
one or both parties. Of course, even in absence of such usage, a weekly
tenant who enters on a fresh week may be bound to continue until the
expiration of that week, or pay the week’s rent.[456] And in New York it
has been decided that in a renting by the month, or from month to month,
a month’s notice to quit is not requisite.”[457]
“But surely,” urged Jones, “a reasonable notice must be given of the
ending of a weekly tenancy. I remember one case in which my father was
concerned, Earle, C. J., said that, although it had been laid down that
a weekly or a monthly holding does not require a week’s or a month’s
notice to determine it unless there be some special agreement or custom,
he did not find that any person ever held that the interest of a tenant
so holding might be put an end to without any notice at all. It would be
most unreasonable, he continued, if a landlord were entitled to turn his
weekly tenant out at twelve o’clock at night on the last day of the
week; some notice must be necessary. Williams, J., gave it as his view,
that whether it be a tenancy from year to year, or week to week, in
either case there must be a legal expression of intention that the
tenancy should cease. The inclination of his opinion was that where the
holding is from week to week a week’s notice should be given, and a
month’s notice where the tenancy is from month to month. Judge Willes,
in a half frightened sort of way, as if he had no doubt he was wrong,
considered that because in a tenancy from year to year half a year’s
notice only was required, therefore he could not see how it was possible
that a tenant from week to week should be entitled to more than half a
week’s notice. While Byles, J., remarked that the notice to a weekly
tenant should be a reasonable one.”[458]
“And doubtless he is right. And if it is necessary at all, it must, of
course, expire on the proper day, _i. e._, at the end of some week of
the tenancy.”[459]
“Yes; and a weekly tenancy beginning on Saturday ends on Saturday.[460]
How would it be, Lawyer, if the landlord rented the rooms to some one
else before the expiration of the week?”
“That would amount to a rescission of the bargain, and he could not sue
the defaulting tenant for rent for the days the apartments were
empty;[461] but lighting or warming the rooms, or putting up ‘to let’ in
the window, will not prevent the owner looking to the man who has left
without giving the proper notice.”[462]
“I suppose that one cannot leave without notice because he fears that
the landlord’s things are likely to be seized by the landlord
paramount,” said Jones.
“Of course you can make an express stipulation to that effect;[463]
otherwise you cannot leave.”[464]
“Well,” said my wife, “I presume that at all events the landlord will
have to rebuild if we are to continue paying rent.”
“By no means. The rule is, that a landlord, after an injury by fire, is
under no obligation to rebuild or repair the house for the benefit of
the tenant,”[465] was my melancholy reply.
Fortunately, breakfast does not last as long as dinner; so this
conversation (which had grown irksome to myself, and has proved probably
equally, if not more so, to my readers) was brought to a conclusion
before very much more was said on this subject, and I gladly availed
myself of the opportunity of going out on business.
Down town I met my old friend, Dr. Lane, who told me of the tiff he had
just had with his landlord. Some months previously he had hired from one
Johnson certain rooms in a fashionable locality, at a rental of a couple
of hundred dollars a year, with the privilege of putting a brass plate
bearing his name upon the front door. Shortly afterward Johnson leased
the whole premises to Mr. Dixon for twenty-one years. In course of time,
the health of the neighborhood being excellent, Lane got in arrear; so
Dixon removed the brass plate, and refused to let the Doctor have access
to his rooms--in fact, finding them open one day, and the lodger out, he
fastened the outer door, and so excluded him altogether. Lane sued for
damages, and the jury kindly gave him £10 for the breaking and entry
into his room, expelling him therefrom and seizing his _etceteras_, and
£20 for the removal of the brass plate. Dixon, rather naturally, was
dissatisfied with the verdict of these twelve men and appealed to the
court, who, however, agreed that the jury were perfectly correct in
their view of the matter, and that the Doctor might keep his £30. The
removal of the plate was considered a distinct and substantive
trespass.[466] Of course the disciple of Galen was overjoyed, and
insisted upon my taking a glass of something alcoholic while he told me
of the little trip that he purposed taking at his landlord’s expense.
After parting from the worthy leech my brain was rather puzzled to draw
a distinction between his case and one decided some time ago, where one
Bloxham, a poulterer and a keeper of a beer-shop, claiming a sum of
money to be due to him by a lodger--one Hartley by name--locked up his
goods in the room in which Hartley had put them, pocketed the key, and
refused the boarder access to them till his bill was paid--yet it was
decided that what was done was not such a taking of goods as would
sustain the action for trespass brought by poor Hartley.[467] At last it
dawned upon me that in the case I was conning over there had been no
actual taking--the landlord never actually touched the goods at all--he
merely locked the door and kept the key, and therein it differed from
Lane’s suit.[468]
In another case, a landlord, before his tenant’s time was up, and
contrary to his wishes, entered his (the tenant’s) room and removed
therefrom books, maps, and papers, placing them where they were damaged
by the rain. The boarder, not liking such treatment, sued his landlord,
and the court decided that the latter was a trespasser and liable for
all damages sustained, whether they resulted from his direct and
immediate acts, or remotely from the act of God.[469]
Before returning home I called on a friend who also dwelt in furnished
apartments. Far from seraphic was the state of mind in which I found
him.
“What can be done to stop that horrid noise? It will drive me mad!” was
his petulant salutation.
I listened, and heard the dull, rumbling noise of some wheeled machine
being rolled, now fast, now slow, then up, then down, in the room above.
“What is it?” I asked.
“Oh, I know what it is only too well. A foolish young couple live up
stairs, and their first baby is teething or something of the sort, and
whines and howls incessantly, so the mother by day and the father by
night continually trundle it up and down the room in a parlor
baby-carriage, making such a noise that I can neither read nor sleep. It
is a regular nuisance, and I’ll have it stopped.”
“I suppose that they don’t do it merely to disturb and annoy you, but
rather for the good of the juvenile,” I remarked.
“As for that matter I presume their intentions are honorable, but that
does not make any difference.”
“Yes it does; the very point has been decided by Judge Van Hoesen, of
New York. To him a Mr. Pool applied for an injunction to prevent one off
his fellow-lodgers wheeling a sick child about the room.”
“Well, what was the result?”
“Why, as it did not appear that the noise was made unnecessarily, but
only from the attempt to soothe the infant, the court refused to
interfere with the amusement of the child, saying that the occupants of
buildings where there are other tenants cannot restrain the others from
any use they may choose to make of their own apartments, consistent
with good neighborhood and with a reasonable regard for the comfort of
others.”
“Humph!”
“The judge added that if the rocking of a cradle, the wheeling of a
carriage, the whirling of a sewing machine, or the discord of ill-played
music, disturb the inmates of an apartment-house, no relief by
injunction can be obtained, unless the proof be clear that the noise is
unreasonable, and made without due regard to the rights and comforts of
other occupants.[470] And in England it was held that the noise of a
piano from a neighbor’s house, or the noise of neighbor’s children in
their nursery, are noises we must expect, and must, to a considerable
extent, put up with.”[471]
“At all events, no judge can compel me to stay in the house and be
annoyed in this way. I’ll give notice to quit at once.”
* * * * *
Here endeth the account of our experiences in the matter of furnished
apartments, boarding-houses, and hotels. After this Mrs. Lawyer and
myself settled down quietly to housekeeping. Our experiences in that
line have nothing to do with the subject of this book.
INDEX.
=Absence of guest=--loss of baggage during, p. 40.
=Accommodation=--innkeeper need only supply reasonable, p. 7.
payment for bad, p. 16.
=Action against innkeeper=--for refusing to receive guest, p. 12.
for supplying bad food, p. 14.
=Agreement to furnish=--p. 177.
=Agreement with innkeeper=--as to board, pp. 61, 168.
as to room, p. 61.
=Assault=--liability of innkeeper for servant’s assault, p. 30.
protecting guests from, pp. 74-124.
=Baggage=--what is, pp. 74, 86-88.
articles of jewelry, p. 86.
innkeeper liable for loss in bus, p. 22.
and during temporary absence of guest, p. 40.
innkeepers are insurers of, p. 46.
need not be given to landlord, p. 47.
where guest retains exclusive possession, pp. 51, 52.
of one stopping elsewhere, p. 60.
=Ball=--innkeeper not liable for loss of a guest at, p. 60.
=Bed=--guest need not go to, p. 40.
damp bed, p. 165.
innkeeper in bed, p. 13.
=Betting and bets=--when improper, pp. 63-65.
when bets recovered, p. 64.
all void, pp. 65, 66.
loser recovering stakes, pp. 66, 67.
=Billiards=--pp. 70, 71.
=Bird=--liable to distress, p. 176.
=Boarder=--annoying fellow-boarders, pp. 163, 164.
must look after his own goods, pp. 159, 160.
=Boarding-house=--what is a, p. 166.
differs from hotel, p. 167.
=Boarding-house keeper=--liability of, pp. 154, 155.
what amount of care required in, p. 155.
liable for gross neglect, p. 160.
liability for theft by stranger, p. 161.
liability for faults of servants, p. 165.
can choose his lodgers, p. 167.
right of lien, p. 169.
=Breakages in hotel=--when guest is liable for, p. 101.
by boarder, p. 188.
=Burglars=--p. 107.
=Card-playing=--description of, p. 71.
in private, p. 68.
=Carelessness of guest=--in elevator, p. 24.
when intoxicated, p. 58.
loss through, pp. 108, 109.
leaving door unlocked, pp. 112-115.
=Carriage=--left outside inn-yard, p. 118.
stolen, p. 119.
=Cat distrainable=--p. 176.
=Clothing=--innkeeper need not supply, p. 19.
innkeeper’s lien on, pp. 137-141.
liable to seizure for rent, pp. 175-176.
=Commercial traveler=--goods of, in private room, pp. 52, 112.
=Dinner hours=--p. 54.
=Dinner-set=--p. 77.
=Distraining for rent=--furnished house, p. 174.
what things liable to distress, pp. 175, 176.
See CAT, CLOTHING.
=Dog in hotel=--p. 43.
=Door=--left unlocked at innkeeper’s request, p. 53.
not necessary to lock, pp. 112, 114.
left open, pp. 154, 155.
=Door-bell=--lodger entitled to use, p. 182.
=Door-plate=--removing, p. 196.
=Ejecting guests=--for bad manners, p. 26.
for non-payment, p. 40.
=Ejecting tenants=--pp. 196, 197.
=Emigrants=--house for, an inn, p. 20.
=Entomological=--pp. 16, 187.
=Explosion of stove=--p. 179.
=Excessive charges=--pp. 30, 124.
=Expectorating=--pp. 20-22.
=Fire=--liability of innkeeper for losses by, p. 103.
=Food=--innkeeper selling bad food, p. 14.
boarding-house keeper selling bad food, p. 165.
=Friend=--cannot sue for lost goods, p. 59.
See VISITOR.
=Furnished apartments=--contract for, must be in writing, p. 174.
liability of landlord to repair, p. 180.
leaving for disrepair, p. 181.
lodger entitled to all appurtenances, p. 182.
must be free from vermin, pp. 183, 184.
must be properly furnished, p. 185.
must be fit for immediate habitation, p. 186.
notice to quit, pp. 191-194.
noise of fellow-lodgers in, pp. 198, 199.
=Gaming=--forbidden in inns, p. 68.
what is, p. 68.
lawful games, pp. 70, 71.
unlawful games, p. 69.
=Goods and property=--definition of, p. 85.
=Guest=--must be a traveler, p. 59.
one purchasing refreshment may be a guest, p. 59.
neighbor not a, p. 14.
when able to pay must always be admitted, p. 9.
when tender necessary, pp. 9, 10.
may be refused admission if improper, pp. 10, 11.
or suffering from contagious disease, p. 10.
or if inn is full, p. 11.
or if he is in filthy state, p. 11.
need not register his name, p. 13.
nor go to bed, p. 40.
nor take all his meals at inn, p. 60.
cannot carry on business at inn, p. 30.
liability when retaining exclusive possession of goods, p. 59.
for breakages, p. 101.
no lien on, pp. 137, 138.
=Horse of guest=--of one stopping elsewhere, pp. 60, 122, 123.
after departure of guest, pp. 62, 120.
stolen from inn stable, p. 129.
injured in inn stable, pp. 120, 121.
injured in field, p. 122.
lien on, for keep of another, p. 128.
for its own keep, p. 129.
for its owner’s keep, p. 127.
stolen horses, p. 132.
=Hotel=--differs not from inn, pp. 2, 3.
derivation of, p. 3.
American and English, pp. 54-57.
See INN.
=Hotel-keeper=--See INNKEEPER.
=Improper persons=--need not be admitted into hotel, p. 10.
=Inevitable accident=--liability of innkeeper for, p. 47.
=Infant=--lien on goods of, p. 149.
=Inn=--derivation of word, p. 3.
differs not from hotel, pp. 2, 3.
origin of, pp. 3, 4.
development of, p. 5.
definition of, pp. 18, 19.
description of country inn, pp. 7, 8.
of city inn, p. 23.
sign not essential to, p. 5.
=Innkeeper=--definition of, pp. 5, 19.
need not let guest choose a room, pp. 7, 39.
must receive all proper persons, pp. 9, 167.
but not those disorderly, p. 10.
or having contagious disease, p. 10.
or if house be full, p. 10.
nor thieves, nor policemen, p. 11.
sickness no excuse for refusing to receive guests, p. 11.
nor absence, p. 11.
nor being in bed, p. 13.
but sickness of servants is, p. 12.
or infancy, p. 12.
See LIEN.
not bound to supply clothes, p. 19.
liable for baggage lost in bus, pp. 22, 62.
for assault of servants upon guest, p. 30.
for goods of guest lost or stolen, pp. 45, 46, 92.
unless guest was negligent, pp. 45, 108.
are insurers of guest’s property, pp. 46, 103.
in whatever part of hotel, pp. 47, 48, 92, 111.
cannot make guest take charge, p. 48.
when his liability ceases, pp. 61-63.
liability for guest’s money, p. 90.
for loss by fire, p. 103.
for acts of mice, p. 104.
for loss by burglars, p. 107.
for horses and carriages, pp. 118-124.
goods outside inn, p. 118.
lien on horses, pp. 128-133.
=Intoxication=--loss of goods by guest, p. 58.
innkeeper drunk in bed, p. 69.
=Laundress=--liability of innkeeper to, p. 29.
=Lawyer’s dinners=--p. 34.
=Leakage of roof=--p. 180.
=Liability of innkeeper=--when it ceases, pp. 61, 62.
limitation of, p. 80.
statutory limitation, p. 81.
construed strictly, pp. 82, 83.
not applicable to horses, p. 120.
=Livery-stable keeper=--lien of, pp. 134, 135.
=Locking door=--pp. 112, 114.
=Lien=--right of, cannot be sold, pp. 131, 148.
on goods of third parties, pp. 132, 146, 150.
special agreement as to payment, p. 134.
of livery-stable keeper, p. 134.
for improving horse, p. 135.
none on person of guest, pp. 137, 138.
nor on clothing, pp. 137-140.
why innkeepers have a, p. 144.
only on goods of guests, pp. 145, 146.
when it ceases, p. 147.
no limit to amount of, p. 148.
boarding-house keepers, p. 169.
See HORSES.
=Manners at table=--pp. 26, 27.
=Matches=--taking, p. 102.
=Misstatements as to hotels=--p. 23.
=Money=--guest depositing in safe, p. 84.
liability of landlord for, pp. 90, 91, 93.
when entrusted to third party, p. 96.
=Mosquitoes=--p. 74.
=Necessaries of a wife=--pp. 32, 33.
=Neighbor=--cannot be a guest, pp. 14, 60.
unless traveling, pp. 14, 59.
=Noise of boarders=--pp. 120, 121, 198, 199.
=Notice to quit=--pp. 191, 194.
=Parties dining together=--p. 28.
=Prize candy=--p. 71.
=Pullman car=--not a common inn, pp. 76, 77.
=Rats and mice=--depredations of, pp. 104, 105.
=Refreshment bar=--not an inn, p. 35.
=Register=--guest need not enter name in, p. 13.
=Repairs=--liability of landlord for, pp. 180, 181.
after a fire, p. 195.
=Restaurant=--not an inn, p. 35.
=Robbery=--liability of host for loss of guest’s goods, pp. 45, 92, 94.
by guest, pp. 53, 110.
=Room=--landlord to choose, pp. 7, 39.
trespassing on guest’s, p. 73.
=Safe=--depositing in, p. 79.
See VALUABLES.
=Shaving=--when barber liable for accidents, p. 99.
=Singing=--of fellow-boarders, pp. 120, 121.
=Sleeping-car owners=--neither innkeepers nor common carriers, pp. 76, 77.
=Smells=--effect on tenants’ rights of noxious, pp. 186, 187.
=Stables=--not a necessary for an inn, p. 19.
landlord’s liability for bad, pp. 120, 121.
=Stove-pipe=--passing through room, p. 178.
=Sunday travelers=--must be admitted by innkeeper, p. 13.
=Tavern an inn=--p. 36.
=Tender of payment=--by guest, pp. 9, 10.
=Traveler=--who is a, p. 59.
=Valuables=--when need be deposited in safe, p. 48.
notice of rule as to deposit of, pp. 49, 50, 79.
personal jewelry, p. 79.
when to be deposited, pp. 84, 96.
=Watch=--as to depositing in safe, pp. 79, 80, 83, 85.
=Watering-place=--hotel at, p. 168.
=Water-pipes=--leakage of, p. 178.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Taylor _v._ Monnot, 4 Duer, 116; Jones _v._ Osborn, 2 Chit. 486.
[2] People _v._ Jones, 54 N. Y. (Barb.) 311; St. Louis _v._ Siegrist,
46 Mo. 593.
[3] Wharton’s Law of Innkeepers, 8.
[4] Gen. xlii:27.
[5] Bac. Abr. Innk. B; Parker _v._ Flint, 12 Mod. 255; Dickinson _v._
Rodgers, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 179.
[6] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 269; Doyle _v._ Walker, 26 Q. B.
(Ont.) 502.
[7] Taylor _v._ Humphreys, 30 Law J. 262; Watson _v._ Cross, 2 Duval,
(Ky.) 147; Newton _v._ Trigg, 1 Show. 276; Commonwealth _v._ Mitchell,
1 Phil. (Pa.) 63.
[8] Rex _v._ Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213.
[9] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 276.
[10] Wharton, p. 78.
[11] Doyle _v._ Walker, 26 Q. B. (Ont.) 502.
[12] Fell _v._ Knight, _supra_.
[13] Howell _v._ Jackson, 6 Car. & P. 742; Moriarty _v._ Brooks, Ibid.
634.
[14] Markham _v._ Brown, 8 N. H. 523; Fell _v._ Knight, _supra_.
[15] Rex _v._ Ivens, _supra_; Fell _v._ Knight, _supra_.
[16] Roll. Abr. 3 F; White’s Case, Dyer, 158.
[17] Marshall _v._ Fox, Law Rep. 6 Q. B. 370; Markham _v._ Brown, 8
N.H. 523.
[18] Mullins _v._ Collins, 43 Law J. M. C. 67.
[19] Markham _v._ Brown, _supra_; Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal. 557.
[20] Bac. Abr. Inns, c. 4; Cross _v._ Andrews, Cro. Eliz. 622.
[21] Addison on Torts, 938. But see Com. Dig. vol. 1, p. 413.
[22] Curw. Hawk. 714.
[23] Cayle’s Case, 8 Coke, 32.
[24] Rex _v._ Luellin, 12 Mod. 445; Reg. _v._ Rymner, L. R. 2 Q. B. D.
136.
[25] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 269.
[26] Fell _v._ Knight, _supra_.
[27] Rex _v._ Ivens, 7 Car. &. P. 213.
[28] “Did you see that absurd paragraph concerning a traveler who was
writing his name in the book when a B. B. sallied out of a crack and
took his way slowly and sedately across the page. The newly arrived
paused and remarked: ‘I’ve been bled by St. Joe fleas, bitten by Kansas
City spiders, and interviewed by Fort Scot graybacks, but I’ll be
hanged if I ever was in a place before where the bedbugs looked over
the hotel register to find out where your room was.’”
“It is generally not necessary for them to take that trouble,” I
replied.
[29] Rex _v._ Ivens, 7 Car. & P. 213.
[30] Bac. Abr. vol. 4, p. 448.
[31] Walling _v._ Potter, 35 Conn. 183.
[32] Cayle’s Case.
[33] Roll. Abr. 95.
[34] 1 Blackst. Com. 430.
[35] Hart _v._ Windsor, 12 Mees. & W. 68.
[36] Sutton _v._ Temple, Ibid. 52, 60.
[37] Peters. Abr. vol. 5, p. 159; Jeremy on Bailments, 139.
[38] Thompson _v._ Lacy, 3 B. & Ald. 203. See also Dickenson _v._
Rodgers, 4 Humph. 179.
[39] Bacon’s Abr. Inns, C.
[40] Thompson _v._ Lacy, 3 B. & Ald. 283.
[41] Wintermute _v._ Clarke, 5 Sand. 247; Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33
Cal. 557.
[42] Parker _v._ Flint, 12 Mod. 255; Parkhurst _v._ Foster, Salk. 287.
[43] Bacon’s Abr. Inn. C.
[44] Lyon _v._ Smith, 1 Morris, 184; State _v._ Mathews, 2 Dev. &
B. 424; Bonner _v._ Welborn, 7 Geo. 296. But see Commonwealth _v._
Wetherbee, 101 Mass. 214.
[45] Thompson _v._ Lacy, _supra_.
[46] Krohn _v._ Sweeny, 2 Daly, N. Y. 200.
[47] Willard _v._ Reinhardt, 2 E. D. Smith, 148.
[48] Dickinson _v._ Winchester, 4 Cush. 114.
[49] Bacon’s Abr. Inns, B.
[50] Robinson _v._ Cove, 22 Vt. 213; Butterfield _v._ Forrester, 11
East, 60; Rathbun _v._ Payne, 19 Wend. 399.
[51] Commonwealth _v._ Mitchell, 2 Pars. Sel. Cas. 431.
[52] Commonwealth _v._ Mitchell, 1 Phila. 63.
[53] Kelsey _v._ Henry, 49 Ill. 488.
[54] Prendergast _v._ Compton, 8 Car. & P. 454.
[55] Dons de Comus, Paris, 1758.
[56] Foster _v._ Taylor, 3 Camp. N. P. 49.
[57] Foster _v._ Taylor, 3 Camp. N. P. 49.
[58] Collard _v._ White, 1 Starkie. 171.
[59] Bacon’s Abr. Inns, C.
[60] Ambler _v._ Skinner, 7 Rob. (N. Y.) 561.
[61] Wade _v._ Thayer, 40. Cal. 578.
[62] Lane _v._ Ironmonger, 13 Mees. & W. 368.
[63] Atkins _v._ Carwood, 7 Car. & P. 759.
[64] Freestone _v._ Butcher, 9 Car. & P. 643.
[65] Parke _v._ Kleeber, 37 Pa. St. 251.
[66] Gilman _v._ Andrus, 28 Vt. 241.
[67] Wood _v._ Kelly, 8 Cush. 406.
[68] Carpenter _v._ Taylor, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 193.
[69] Regina _v._ Rymer, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 136.
[70] Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. 276. See, also, Houser _v._ Tully, 62
Pa. St. 92.
[71] Southcote _v._ Stanley, 1 Hurl. & N. 247.
[72] Per Pollock, B. C.
[73] Ibid.
[74] Southcote _v._ Stanley, _supra_.
[75] Doyle _v._ Walker, 26 Q. B. (Ont.) 502.
[76] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 276.
[77] Lane _v._ Dixon, 3 M. G. & S. 784.
[78] Doyle _v._ Walker, _supra_.
[79] Fell _v._ Knight, 8 Mees. & W. 276.
[80] McDonald _v._ Edgerton, 5 Barb. (N. Y.) 560
[81] Bacon’s Abr. Inns, C; Gelley _v._ Clark, Cro. J. 188.
[82] Murray _v._ Clarke, 2 Daly, (N. Y.) 102.
[83] For answer, see page 103.
[84] Regina _v._ Rymer, L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 141.
[85] Kent _v._ Shuckard, 2 Barn. & Adol. 803.
[86] Cashill _v._ Wright, 6 El. & B. 89.
[87] Year Book, 10 Henry VII, 26.
[88] Morgan _v._ Ravey, 6 Hurl. & N. 265.
[89] Ibid.
[90] Shaw _v._ Berry, 31 Me. 478; Sibley _v._ Aldrich, 33 N. H. 553.
[91] Kellogg _v._ Sweeney, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 397.
[92] Rockwell _v._ Proctor, 39 Ga. 105.
[93] Wilde, J., Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 Pick. 280.
[94] Jones on Bailments, pp. 95-96.
[95] Wharton on Innkeepers, p. 88.
[96] Cayle’s Case; Packard _v._ Northcraft, 2 Met. (Ky.) 439; Norcross
_v._ Norcross, 53 Me. 163; Burrows _v._ Truber, 21 Md. 320; McDonald
_v._ Edgerton, 5 Barb. 560; Coykendall _v._ Eaton, 55 Barb. 188.
[97] Hallenbake _v._ Fish, 8 Wend. 547.
[98] Chute _v._ Wiggins, 14 Johns. 175.
[99] Epps _v._ Hinds, 27 Miss. 657; Simon _v._ Miller, 7 La. An. 368.
[100] Candy _v._ Spencer, 3 Fost. & F. 306.
[101] Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 Term. Rep. 273.
[102] Johnson _v._ Richardson, 17 Ill. 302; Piper _v._ Hall, 14 La. An.
324; Profilet _v._ Hall, Ibid. 524.
[103] Saunders _v._ Spencer, Dyer, 266a; Wilson _v._ Halpin, 30 How.
Pr. 124; Packard _v._ Northcraft, 2 Met. (Ky.) 439; Fuller _v._ Coats,
18 Ohio St. 343.
[104] Stanton _v._ Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88; Kellogg _v._ Sweeney, 1
Lans. N. Y. 397.
[105] Van Wyck _v._ Howard, 12 How. Pr. 147.
[106] Profilet _v._ Hall, 16 La. An. 524.
[107] Morgan _v._ Ravey, 30 L. J. Exch. 131, per Wilde, B.; 6 Hurl. &
N. 265.
[108] Bernstein _v._ Sweeny, 33 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 271. See, also, Kent
_v._ Midland Rwy. L. R. 10 B. 1; Henderson _v._ Stevenson, L. R. 2
Scotch & D. 470.
[109] Purvis _v._ Coleman. 21 N. Y. 111.
[110] Farnsworth _v._ Packwood, 1 Stark. 249; Packard _v._ Northcraft,
2 Met. (Ky.) 439; Vance _v._ Throckmorton, 5 Bush, (Ky.) 41.
[111] Farnsworth _v._ Packwood, _supra_.
[112] Burgess _v._ Clements, 4 Maule & S. 307.
[113] Packard _v._ Northcraft, 2 Met. (Ky.) 439.
[114] Richmond _v._ Smith, 8 Barn. & C. 9.
[115] Richmond _v._ Smith, 8 Barn. & C. 9.
[116] Jailei _v._ Cardinal, 35 Wis. 118.
[117] Dessauer _v._ Baker, 1 Wilson (Ind.) 429.
[118] Milford _v._ Wesley, 1 Wilson (Ind.) 119.
[119] Walsh _v._ Porterfield, Sup. Ct. Pa. 19 Alb. L. J. 376.
[120] Bacon, Abridg., vol. 4, p. 448.
[121] McDonald _v._ Edgerton, 5 Barb. 560; Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R.
274.
[122] Per Cockburn, C. J., Atkinson _v._ Sellars, 5 C. B. N. S. 442.
[123] Walling _v._ Potter, 35 Conn. 183.
[124] Grinnell _v._ Cook, 3 Hill, (N. Y.) 486.
[125] Carter _v._ Hobbs, 12 Mich. 52.
[126] Gelley _v._ Clarke, Cro. Jac. 188; Orange Co. Bank _v._ Brown, 9
Wend. 114.
[127] York _v._ Grindstone, 1 Salk. 388; Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 Pick.
280; Peet _v._ McGraw, 25 Wend. 653.
[128] Ingalsbee _v._ Woods, 33 N. Y. 577; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 2,
p. 153.
[129] York _v._ Grindstone, _supra_.
[130] McDaniels _v._ Robinson, 26 Vt. 316.
[131] Parkhurst _v._ Foster, Sal. 388.
[132] Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal. 557.
[133] Shoecraft _v._ Bailey, 25 Iowa, 553; Berkshire Woollen Co. _v._
Proctor, 7 Cush. 417; Hall _v._ Pike, 100 Mass. 495.
[134] Chamberlain _v._ Masterson, 26 Ala. 371; Manning _v._ Wells, 9
Humph. 746; Ewart _v._ Stark, 8 Rich. 423; Hursh _v._ Beyers, 29 Mo.
469; Parkhurst _v._ Foster, Sal. 388.
[135] Parker _v._ Flint, 12 Mod. 255.
[136] Lusk _v._ Belote, 22 Minn. 468.
[137] Wintermate _v._ Clarke, 5 Sandf. 262; Lawrence _v._ Howard, 1
Utah T. 142.
[138] McDaniels _v._ Robinson, 28 Vt. 387.
[139] Corkindale _v._ Eaton, 40 How. N. Y. Pr. 266.
[140] Sasseen _v._ Clark, 37 Ga. 242.
[141] Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126.
[142] Adams _v._ Clenn, 41 Ga. 65.
[143] Stanton _v._ Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88.
[144] Bendetson _v._ French, 46 N. Y. 266; Kellogg _v._ Sweeney, Ibid.
291.
[145] Good _v._ Elliott, 3 T. R. 693.
[146] Da Costa _v._ Jones, Cowper, 729.
[147] McAllister _v._ Haden. 2 Campb. 436.
[148] Hussey _v._ Crickett, 3 Campb. 160.
[149] Earl of March _v._ Pigot, 5 Burr. 2802.
[150] Squires _v._ Whisken, 3 Camp. 140.
[151] See 8 and 9 Vict., chap. 109.
[152] Savage _v._ Madden, 36 L. J. Ex. 178.
[153] Hampden _v._ Walsh, L. R. 1 Q. B. Div. 189.
[154] Ruchman _v._ Pitcher, 1 Comst. 392.
[155] Garrison _v._ McGregor, 51 Ill. 473; Adkins _v._ Fleming, 29
Iowa, 122; Searle _v._ Prevost, 4 Houst. (Del.) 467. But see Johnston
_v._ Russell, 37 Cal. 670.
[156] Eldred _v._ Malloy, 2 Col. 320.
[157] Parsons on Contracts, vol. 2, p. 756.
[158] Yates _v._ Foot, 12 Johns. 1.
[159] Johnson _v._ Russell, 37 Cal. 670.
[160] Wharton on Innkeepers, 62.
[161] Rex _v._ Ashton, 22 L. J. M. C. 1.
[162] Danford _v._ Taylor, 22 L. T. Rep. 483; Foot _v._ Baker, 6 Scott
N. R. 301.
[163] Searle _v._ St. Martins’ J. J. 4 J. P. 276; Avards _v._ Dunce, 26
J. P. 437.
[164] Patten _v._ Rhymer, 29 L. J. M. C. 189.
[165] Wharton, 81.
[166] Lester _v._ Torrens, L. R. 2 Q. B. Div. 403.
[167] Bew _v._ Harston, L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 454.
[168] 13 Geo. II, chap. 19.
[169] 8 and 9 Vict. chap. 109. sec. 1.
[170] Wharton, 65.
[171] Abinger, C. B., in McKinnell _v._ Robinson, 3 M. & W. 439.
[172] Tanner _v._ Albion, 5 Hill, 128; but see People _v._ Sargeant, 8
Cowen, 139.
[173] McDaniels _v._ Commonwealth, 6 Bush. 326.
[174] Neal’s Case, 22 Gratt. 917.
[175] Enbanks _v._ State, 3 Hersk. 488.
[176] Graham _v._ Peat, 1 East, 246.
[177] Doyle _v._ Walker, 26 U. C. R. 502.
[178] Cayle’s Case, 8 Co. 32.
[179] Lasseen _v._ Clark, 37 Ga. 242.
[180] Pullman Palace Car Co. _v._ Smith, 73 Ill. 360.
[181] Morgan _v._ Ravey, 6 Hurl. & N. 265.
[182] Ibid.
[183] Giles _v._ Libby, 36 Barr. 70. But see Hyatt _v._ Taylor, 51
Barb. 632, and Rosenplanter _v._ Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262.
[184] Bodwell _v._ Bragg, 29 Iowa, 232.
[185] Morgan _v._ Ravey, 30. L. J. Ex. 131.
[186] Bernstein _v._ Sweeney, 33 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 271.
[187] Imp. Stat., 26 and 27 Vict., chap. 41, sec. 1. A similar statute
is in force in Ontario, only the money is limited to forty dollars. (37
Vict. O., chap 11, secs. 1-4.)
[188] Statutes of 1855, chap. 421.
[189] Wisconsin has a like law. (Laws of 1864, chap. 318.)
[190] Spice _v._ Bacon, L. R. 2 Ex. Div. 463; 16 A. L. J. 385.
[191] Remaly _v._ Leland, 43 N. Y. 538; Kellogg _v._ Sweeney, 1 Lans.
N. Y. 397.
[192] Remaly _v._ Leland, _supra_.
[193] Bernstein _v._ Sweeney, 35 N. Y. 271; Krohn _v._ Sweeney, 2 Daly,
N. Y. 200; Milford _v._ Wesley, 1 Wilson, (Ind.) 119.
[194] Stewart _v._ Parsons, 24 Wis. 241.
[195] Giles _v._ Libbey, 36 Bar. 70.
[196] Rosenplanter _v._ Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262.
[197] Rosenplanter _v._ Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262; Bendetson _v._ French,
46 N. Y. distinguished.
[198] 11 Can. Law Jour. N. S. 103.
[199] Pope _v._ Hall, 14 La. An. 324.
[200] Hawkins _v._ Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586.
[201] Macrow _v._ G. W. Rw. L. R. 6 Q. B. 622.
[202] Wilkins _v._ Earle, 18 Abb. N. Y. 190.
[203] Brooke _v._ Pickwick, 4 Bing. 218; McGill _v._ Rowand, 3 Penn.
St. 451.
[204] Nevins _v._ Bay State S. B. Co. 4 Bosw. 589.
[205] Jones _v._ Voorhes, 10 Ohio, 145; Miss. C. Rw. _v._ Kennedy, 41
Miss. 471.
[206] Bonner _v._ Maxwell, 9 Humphrey, 621.
[207] McCormick _v._ Hudson River Rw. 4 E. D. Smith, 181.
[208] Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126.
[209] Brutz _v._ G. T. R. 32 U. C. Q. B. 66.
[210] Re H. M. Wright, Newberry Admiralty; Sasseen _v._ Clark, 37 Ga.
242.
[211] Toledo & Wabash Riv. _v._ Hammond, 33 Ind. 379.
[212] Sasseen _v._ Clark, 37 Ga. 242.
[213] Wood _v._ Devon, 13 Ill. 746.
[214] Davis _v._ C. & S. Rw. 10 How. Pr. 330.
[215] Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126.
[216] Hudston _v._ Midland Rw. L. R. 4 Q. B. 366.
[217] Hawkins _v._ Hoffman, 6 Hill, N. Y. Rep 589.
[218] Gt. W. Rev. _v._ Shepherd, 8 Ex. 38. But see Bell _v._ Drew, 4 E.
D. Smith, 59.
[219] Hopkins _v._ Westcott, 7 Am. Law. Reg. N. S. 533.
[220] Mytton _v._ Midland Rw. 4 H. & N. 615.
[221] Macrow _v._ Gt. W. Rw. L. R. 6 Q. B. 622, Cockburn, C. J.
[222] Brutz _v._ G. T. Rw. 32 U. C. Q. B. 66.
[223] Porter _v._ Hildebrand, 14 Pa. St. 129.
[224] Brutz _v._ G. T. R. _supra_.
[225] Gilox _v._ Shepherd, 8 Ex. 30; Pardee _v._ Drew, 25 Wend. 459;
Shaw _v._ G. T. Rw. 7 U. C. C. P. 493.
[226] Belfast B. L. & C. Rw. _v._ Keys, 9 Ho. Lords Cas. 556; Hawkins
_v._ Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586.
[227] Phelps _v._ London & N. W. Rw. 19 C. B. N. S. 321.
[228] Ibid.
[229] Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md. 126.
[230] Brutz _v._ G. T. Rw. _supra_.
[231] Shoecraft _v._ Bailey, 25 Iowa, 553.
[232] Weiseinger _v._ Taylor, 1 Bush, 275.
[233] Maltby _v._ Chapman, 25 Md. 307; a decision under Md. Code, art.
70, secs. 5, 6.
[234] Taylor _v._ Monnot, 4 Duer, (N. Y.) 116; Van Wyck _v._ Howard, 12
How. (N. Y.) Pr. 147; Stanton _v._ Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, (N. Y.) 88;
Simon _v._ Miller, 7 La. An. 360.
[235] Hyatt _v._ Taylor, 51 Barb. N. Y. 632; 42 N. Y. 259.
[236] Wilkins _v._ Earle, 18 Abb. N. Y. 190.
[237] Wilkins _v._ Earle, 44 N. Y. 172.
[238] Story’s Commentaries, sec. 481.
[239] Commentaries, sec. 470.
[240] 1 Black. Com. 430.
[241] Kent _v._ Shuckard, 2 B. & Ad. 803.
[242] Per McCann, J., Wilkins _v._ Earle.
[243] Orange Co. Bank _v._ Brown, 9 Wend. 85; Weed _v._ Saratoga & Sch.
Rw. 19 Wend. 524; Red. on Railways, vol. 2, pp. 55, 58.
[244] Coggs _v._ Barnard, 1 Sm. Leading Cases, 309; Lane _v._ Cotton,
12 Mod. 487; Wharton on Innkeepers, 97.
[245] Cole _v._ Goodwin, 19 Wend.
[246] Quintin _v._ Courtney. Hay. (N. C.) 41.
[247] Giles _v._ Libby, 36 Barb. 70.
[248] Berkshire Woollen Co. _v._ Proctor, 7 Cush. 417.
[249] Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal. 557.
[250] Bendeton _v._ French, 44 Barb. 31.
[251] Woodward _v._ Bird, 4 Bush. (Ky.) 510.
[252] Houser _v._ Tulley, 62 Pa. St. 92.
[253] Sneider _v._ Geiss, 1 Yeates, 24.
[254] Rosenplanter _v._ Roessle, 54 N. Y. 262; Bendetson _v._ French,
46 N. Y.
[255] Stanton _v._ Leland, 4 E. D. Smith, 88.
[256] Wharton on Negligence, secs. 50, 730.
[257] Wharton on Neg. sec. 732; Hood. _v._ Grimes, 13 B. Mon. 188.
[258] Ritchey _v._ West, 23 Ill. 385.
[259] Wharton on Negligence, secs. 437, 641.
[260] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 731.
[261] Jones on Bailments, 88.
[262] Addison on Contracts, 415.
[263] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 713.
[264] Mitchum _v._ The State, 45 Ala. 29.
[265] Merrill _v._ Claghorn, 23 Vt. 177; also Vance _v._ Throckmorton,
5 Bush. (Ky.) 41.
[266] Dawson _v._ Chamney, 5 Q. B. (N. S.) 164.
[267] Cutler _v._ Bonney, 30 Mich. 259.
[268] Mateer _v._ Brown, 1 Cal. 225; Wharton on Neg. p. 111.
[269] Hulett _v._ Swift, 33 N. Y. 571.
[270] Faucett _v._ Nicholls, 64 N. Y. 377.
[271] Mateer _v._ Brown, 1 Cal. 221.
[272] Dale _v._ Hall, 1 Wils. 281.
[273] Kay _v._ Wheeler, L. R. 2 C. P. 302.
[274] Carstairs _v._ Taylor, Law R. 6 Ex. 217.
[275] Carstairs _v._ Taylor, _supra_.
[276] Ibid. per Bramwell, J.
[277] McKome _v._ Word, 5 Car. & P. 1.
[278] McDaniels _v._ Robinson, 26 Vt. 311; Morse _v._ Shee, 1 Vent.
190, 238.
[279] Mateer _v._ Brown, 1 Cal. 221; Norcross _v._ Norcross, 53 Me.
163; Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal 557.
[280] Mateer _v._ Brown, _supra_. See, also, Mason _v._ Thompson, 9
Pick. 284.
[281] Story on Bailments, sec. 17.
[282] Rolfe, B. in Wilson _v._ Brett, 11 M. & W. 110; Austin _v._
Manchester &c. Railway, 10 C. B. 474.
[283] Fowler _v._ Dorlon, 24 Barb. 384.
[284] Armistead _v._ White, 29 Law J. Q. B. 524.
[285] Cashill _v._ Wright, 6 El. & B. 898.
[286] Chamberlain _v._ Masterson, 26 Ala. 371; Hadley _v._ Upshaw, 27
Tex. 547; Profiles _v._ Hall, 11 La. An. 324.
[287] Kelsey _v._ Berry, 42 Ill. 469; Cayle’s Case, 8 Coke, 32.
[288] 1 Andess. 29.
[289] Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. 273.
[290] Erle, J., in Cashill _v._ Wright, 6 El. & B. 895.
[291] Cayle’s Case, 8 Coke, 32.
[292] Mitchell _v._ Woods, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 676; Filipourke _v._
Merryweather, 2 Fost. & F. 285.
[293] Spice _v._ Bacon, 16 Alb. L. J. 386.
[294] Classen _v._ Leopold, 2 Sweeney, (N. Y.) 705.
[295] Baddenberg _v._ Benner, 1 Hilt. (N. Y.) 84.
[296] Burgess _v._ Clements, 4 Moore & S. 306.
[297] Pettigrew _v._ Barnum, 11 Md. 434; Giles _v._ Fauntleroy, 13 Md.
126.
[298] Burgess _v._ Clements, _supra_.
[299] Per Montague Smith, J.; Oppenheim _v._ White Lion Hotel Co. L. R.
6 C. P. 515.
[300] Cayle’s Case.
[301] Oppenheim _v._ White Lion Hotel Co. _ante._
[302] Jones _v._ Tyler, 1 Ad. & E. 522.
[303] Taunton, J., in Jones _v._ Tyler.
[304] Piper _v._ Manny, 21 Wend. 283.
[305] Story on Bailments, sec. 478.
[306] Chute _v._ Wiggins, 14 Johnson, 175.
[307] Parsons on Contracts, vol. 2, p. 169.
[308] Dickenson _v._ Rodgers, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 179.
[309] Seymour _v._ Cook, 53 Barb. 451.
[310] Metcalf _v._ Hess, 14 Ill. 129; Hill _v._ Owen, 5 Blackf. (Ind.)
323.
[311] Thickstern _v._ Howard, 8 Blackf. 535.
[312] Jordan _v._ Boone, 5 Rich. 528.
[313] Washburn _v._ Jones, 14 Barb. 193.
[314] Dawson _v._ Chamney, 52 B. 33.
[315] Wharton on Innkeepers, p. 111; Matier _v._ Brown, 1 Cal. 221.
[316] Cayle’s Case, 8 Rep. 32; Hawley _v._ Smith, 25 Wend. 642.
[317] Story on Bailments, sec. 478.
[318] Saunders _v._ Plummer, Orl. Bridg. 227.
[319] Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 Pickering, 280.
[320] Bennet _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. 273.
[321] Wintermute _v._ Clarke, 5 Sandf. 242; Smith _v._ Dearlove, 6 C.
B. 132.
[322] Peel _v._ McGraw, 25 Wendell, 653; York _v._ Grindstone, 1 Salk.
388; Sturt _v._ Dromgold, 3 Bulst. 289. But see Grinnell _v._ Cook, 3
Hills, N. Y. 686; Ingallsbee _v._ Wood, 33 N. Y. 577; 36 Barb. N. Y.
425; Nowers _v._ Fethers, 61 N. Y. 34; Healey _v._ Gray, 68 Me. 489.
[323] Mason _v._ Thompson, _supra_.
[324] Bacon’s Abr. Inns and Innkeepers, C.
[325] Bacon, _supra_.
[326] 21 Jac. I, chap. 21, sec. 2.
[327] 1 Hawk. 225.
[328] Cayle’s Case, 8 Rep. 32; Stammin _v._ Davis, 1 Salk. 404.
[329] Rosse _v._ Bramstead, 2 Rol. Rep. 438; Bac. Abr. vol. 4, p. 411;
Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3, p. 250. But see Mulliner _v._ Florence,
L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 454.
[330] Moss _v._ Townsend, 1 Bulstr. 207. But see Story on Bailments,
sec. 476.
[331] Story on Bailments, sec. 476.
[332] Allan _v._ Smith, 12 C. B., N. S. 638.
[333] Jones _v._ Thurloe, 8 Mod. 172; Jones _v._ Pearle, 1 Strange,
556; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3, p. 250.
[334] Ross _v._ Bramstead, 2 Rol. Rep. 438.
[335] York _v._ Grindstone, 2 Ld. Raym. 866. But see Fox _v._ McGregor,
11 Barb. (N. Y.) 41; Saint _v._ Smith, 1 Caldw. (Tenn.) 51.
[336] Gilbert _v._ Berkeley, Skin. 648. And see Scarfe _v._ Morgan, 4
M. & W. 270; and Somes _v._ B. Emp. Ell. Bl. & Ell. 353.
[337] Westbrooke _v._ Griffith, Moor. 876; Jones _v._ Thurloe, 8 Mod.
172; Mulliner _v._ Florence, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 489.
[338] Westbrooke _v._ Griffith, _supra_.
[339] Idem.
[340] Jones _v._ Pearle, Str. 556; Thames I. W. Co. _v._ Pat. Derrick
Co. 1 Johns. & W. 97; 27 L. J. C. 714; Mulliner _v._ Florence, L. R. 3
Q. B. D. 484.
[341] Wharton on Innk. 122; Cross on Lien, 345 _n_.
[342] Fox _v._ McGregor, 4 Barb. 41; Hickman _v._ Thomas, 16 Ala. 666;
Miller _v._ Marston, 85 Me. 153.
[343] York _v._ Grenaugh, 2 Ld. Raym. 866; Robinson _v._ Walker, Pop.
127.
[344] Turrill _v._ Crawley, 13 Ad. & E. (N. S.) 197; Manning _v._
Hollenbeck. 27 Wis. 202.
[345] See, also, Johnson _v._ Hill, 3 Stark. 172.
[346] Wharton, p. 120; Stirt _v._ Drungold, 3 Bulst. 289. But see
Mulliner _v._ Florence, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 484.
[347] Burns _v._ Pigot, 9 C. & P. 208.
[348] Grinnell _v._ Cook, 3 Hill, (N. Y.) 486.
[349] Dixon _v._ Dalby, 9 U. C. Q. B. 79.
[350] Grammell _v._ Schley, 41 Ga. 112.
[351] Judson _v._ Etheridge, 1 C. & M. 743; Anderson _v._ Bell, 2 C. &
M. 304; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3, p. 250.
[352] Kinlock _v._ Craig, 3 L. R. 119; Taylor _v._ Robinson, 8 Taunt.
648; Jackson _v._ Cummins, 5 M. & W. 342.
[353] Orchard _v._ Rackstraw, 9 C. B. 698; Hickman _v._ Thomas, 16 Ala.
666; Thickstein _v._ Howard, 8 Blackf. 535.
[354] Mason _v._ Thompson, 9 Pick. 280.
[355] Smith _v._ Dearlove, 6 C. B. 132.
[356] Wallace _v._ Woodgate, 1 Ryan & M. 193.
[357] Jacobs _v._ Latour, 2 M. & P. 20; 5 Bing. 130; Jackson _v._
Cummins, 5 M. & W. 342; Harris _v._ Woodruff, 124 Mass. 205.
[358] Sunbolf _v._ Alford, 3 M. & W. 254; Parsons on Contracts, vol. 3,
p. 250.
[359] Ibid.
[360] Bacon’s Abr. Inns. D.
[361] Newton _v._ Trigg, 1 Shower, 269.
[362] Sunbolf _v._ Alford, 3 Mees. & W. 248.
[363] Mulliner _v._ Florence, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 485.
[364] Drope _v._ Thaire, Latch, 127; Grinstone _v._ Innkeeper, Hetl.
49; Pollock _v._ Landis, 36 Iowa, 651; Hursh _v_. Byers, 29 Mo. 469;
Ewart _v._ Stark, 8 Rich. (S. C.) 423.
[365] Wintermute _v._ Clarke, 5 Sandf. 242.
[366] Wharton, p. 123.
[367] Berkshire Co. _v._ Proctor, 7 Cush. 417.
[368] Trelfall _v._ Borwick, 41 Law J. Q. B. 266; affirmed, L. R. 10 Q.
B. (Exch.) 210.
[369] Bennett _v._ Mellor, 5 T. R. 273.
[370] Allen _v._ Smith, 12 Com. B. N. S. 638; Peet _v._ McGraw, 25
Wend. 654.
[371] Johnson _v._ Hill, 3 Stark. 172; Kent _v._ Shuckard, 2 Barn. &
Adol. 805.
[372] Johnson _v._ Hill, _supra_.
[373] Domestic Sewing Machine Co. _v._ Walters, 50 Ga. 573.
[374] Broadwood _v._ Granara, 10 Ex. 423. See, also, Carlisle _v._
Quattlebaum, 2 Bail. 452; Fox _v._ McGregor, 11 Barb. 41.
[375] Cross on Lien, p. 30; Snead _v._ Watkins, 1 Com. B. N. S. 267.
[376] Byall _v._ ----, Atk. 165. See, also, Chapter VII.
[377] Manning _v._ Hollenbeck, 27 Wis. 202.
[378] Dicas _v._ Stockley, 7 Car. & P. 587; Bristol _v._ Wilsmore, 1
Barn. & C. 514.
[379] Ratcliff _v._ Davies, Cro. Jac. 244.
[380] Gordon _v._ Cox, 7 Car. & P. 172.
[381] Per Willes J., Allen _v._ Smith, 12 Com. B. N. S. 644.
[382] Owen _v._ Knight, 5 Scott, 307.
[383] Hodgson _v._ Loy, 7 T. R. 660.
[384] Horncastle _v._ Farran, 2 Barn. & Ald. 497.
[385] Case _v._ Fogg, 46 Mo. 66; Thames Iron W. Co. _v._ Patent Derrick
Co. 1 Johns. & W. 97; Mulliner _v._ Florence L. R. 3 Q. B. 484.
[386] Proctor _v._ Nicholson, 7 Car. & P. 67.
[387] Watson _v._ Cross, 2 Duv. (Ken.) 147.
[388] Somes _v._ British Emp. Sh. Co. 8 H. L. Cas. 338; El. B. & E.
353. But see, in cases of horses, p. 129.
[389] Clayton _v._ Butterfield, 10 Rich. 423.
[390] Dansey _v._ Richardson, 3 El. & Bl. 144.
[391] Holder _v._ Soulby, 8 C. B. N. S. 254.
[392] Idem--Earle, C. J.
[393] Manning _v._ Wells, 9 Humph. 746.
[394] Johnson _v._ Reynolds, 3 Ken. 257. See, also, Chamberlain _v._
Masterson, 26 Ala. 371.
[395] Smith _v._ Reed, 6 Daly, 33.
[396] Soltan _v._ De Held, 2 Sim. N. S. 133.
[397] State _v._ Linkham, 69 N. C. 214.
[398] State _v._ Hughes, 72 N. C. 25.
[399] State _v._ Powell, 70 N. C. 67.
[400] Newton _v._ Harland, 1 M. & G. 644.
[401] De Witt _v._ Pierson, 112 Mass 8.
[402] Dansey _v._ Richardson, 3 El. & B. 144.
[403] Cady _v._ McDowell, 1 Lans. (N. Y.) 484.
[404] Pinkerton _v._ Woodward, 33 Cal. 557.
[405] Thompson _v._ Lacy, 3 Barn. & Adol. 283.
[406] Willard _v._ Reinhardt, 2 E. D. Smith, 148.
[407] Wharton on Innkeepers, 123.
[408] Benner _v._ Welburn, 7 Ga. 296, 307; Southwood _v._ Myers, 3
Bush, 681.
[409] Stewart _v._ McCready, 24 How. Pr. 62; Jones _v._ Merrill, 42
Barb. 623; Cross _v._ Wilkins, 43 N. H. 332; Nichols _v._ Holliday, 29
Wis. 406.
[410] Brooks _v._ Harrison, 41 Conn. 184.
[411] Wright _v._ Stewart, 29 Law J. Q. B. 161.
[412] 2 and 3 Edw. VI, chap. 19.
[413] 5 Eliz. chap. 5, sec. 15.
[414] Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant. But see Wright _v._ Stewart, 6
Jur. N. S. 867.
[415] Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant. But see Wright _v._ Stewart, 6
Jur. N. S. 867.
[416] Parsons on Contracts, vol. 1, p. 517.
[417] Baynes _v._ Smith, 1 Esp. 206.
[418] Bisset _v._ Caldwell, 1 Esp. 206, n.
[419] Woodfall, Landlord and Tenant, 384.
[420] Parsons on Contracts, vol. 1, p. 518.
[421] Archer _v._ Wetherell, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 112.
[422] 34 and 35 Vict. chap. 79; Phillips _v._ Henson, L. R. 3 C. P. D.
26.
[423] Hunter _v._ Hunt, 1 Com. B. 300.
[424] Mechelen _v._ Wallace, 7 Ad. & E. 49; Vaughan _v._ Hancock, 3
Com. B. 766.
[425] Ross _v._ Fedden, 7 Q. B. 661.
[426] Culverwell _v._ Lockington, 24 C. P. (Ont. 611.)
[427] Jaffe _v._ Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398.
[428] Kimmell _v._ Burfiend, 2 Daly (N. Y.), 155.
[429] Carstairs _v._ Taylor, L. R. 6 Ex. 223.
[430] Stapenhurst _v._ Am. Man. Co. 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. 355; Simonton
_v._ Loring, 68 Me. 164.
[431] Arden _v._ Pullen, 10 Mees. & W. 321; Keates _v._ Cadogan, 10 C.
B. 591; Gott _v._ Gandy, 2 El. & B. 845; Wiltz _v._ Matthews, 52 N. Y.
512; Taffe _v._ Harteau, 56 N. Y. 398.
[432] Scott _v._ Simons, 54 N. H. 426.
[433] Clancy _v._ Byrne, 56 N. Y. 129.
[434] Izon _v._ Gorton, 5 Bing. N. C. 501; 7 Scott, 537.
[435] Surplice _v._ Farnsworth, 7 M. & G. 576.
[436] Maclennan _v._ Royal Ins. Co. 39 Q. B. (Ont.) 515.
[437] Underwood _v._ Burrows, 7 Car. &. P. 26.
[438] Idem.
[439] Smith _v._ Marrable, 11 Mees. & W. 5; Add. on Con. 375-6.
[440] Hart _v._ Windsor, 11 Mees. & W. 68; Sutton _v._ Temple, Ibid.
57; Searle _v._ Laverick, Law R. 9 Q. B. 131; McGlasham _v._ Tallmadge,
37 Barb. 313.
[441] Hart _v._ Windsor, _supra_.
[442] Wilson _v._ Finch Hatton, L. R. 2 Ex. D. 343.
[443] Dutton _v._ Gerrish, 63 Mass. 94.
[444] Sutton _v._ Temple, _supra_.
[445] Westlake _v._ De Graw, 25 Wend. 669.
[446] Wilson _v._ Finch Hatton, L. R. 2 Ex. D. 336.
[447] Smith _v._ Marrable, 11 Mees. & W. 5.
[448] Minor _v._ Sharon, 112 Mass. 477.
[449] Add. on Contracts, 377.
[450] Izon _v._ Gorton, 5 Bing. N. C. 501; 7 Scott, 537; Parker _v._
Gibbons, 1 Q. B. 421; Fowler _v._ Payne, 49 Miss. 32.
[451] Newman _v._ Anderton, 2 Bos. & P. N. R. 224; Cadogan _v._ Kennet,
Cowp. 432.
[452] Ibid.
[453] Newman _v._ Anderton, _supra_.
[454] Ernot _v._ Cole, Dyer, 212b; Cadogan _v._ Kennet, _supra_. But
see Salmon _v._ Matthews, 8 Mees. & W. 827.
[455] Parry _v._ Hazell, 1 Esp. 64; Peacock _v._ Raffan, 6 Esp. 4; Doe
_v._ Bayley, 6 East, 121; Woodfall, 8 Ed. 176.
[456] Huffell _v._ Armstead, 7 Car. & P. 56; Peacock _v._ Raffan, 6
Esp. 4; Towne _v._ Campbell, 3 Com. B. 94.
[457] People _v._ Giolet, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 130.
[458] Jones _v._ Mills, 10 Com. B. N. S. 788.
[459] Finlayson _v._ Bayley, 5 Car. & P. 67.
[460] Huffell _v._ Armistead, 7 Car. & P. 56.
[461] Walls _v._ Atcheson, 3 Bing. 462.
[462] Griffith _v._ Hodges, 2 Car. & P. 419.
[463] Bethett _v._ Blencome, 3 M. & G. 119.
[464] Ricket _v._ Tullick, 6 Car. & P. 66.
[465] Doupe _v._ Genin, 45 N. Y. 119.
[466] Lane _v._ Dixon, 3 M. G. & S. 776.
[467] Hartley _v._ Bloxham, 3 Q. B. 701.
[468] Lane _v._ Dixon, _supra_, per Cresswell, J.
[469] Nowlan _v._ Nevor, 2 Sweeny, (N. Y.) 67.
[470] Pool _v._ Higinson, 18 Alb. L. J. 82.
[471] Mellish, L. J. L. R. 8 Ch. 471.