Case ID: scl_18/html/0452-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Harper, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Carlisle v. John Quattlebaum.
    An inn-keeper has no right to detain the property of his guesl, as a pledge for wbat is due him, though he may detain his person; unless in the ease of a horse, &c. which may be detained for his feeding, but not for the meat of his master. And the privilege of detainer in any case is confined to regular inn-keepers, who are bound to receive guests.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Martin, at Lexington, Spring Term, 1831.
    Appeal from a magistrate. The plaintiff called and breakfasted at defendant’s, for which the latter charged thirty-seven and a half cents: the plaintiff tendered a twenty dollar Georgia bill, which defendant was unable to change, but detained as a pledge for the sum due him. Sometime afterwards the plaintiff met defendant several miles from his home, tendered him thirty-seven and a half cents, and demanded the twenty dollar bill: defendant replied that the bill was at home, and if plaintiff would call there, it would be delivered to him by defendant’s wife. The plaintiff went to a magistrate and commenced suit against defendant, and judgment was rendered in his favour for nineteen dollars and sixty-two and a half cents. On appeal, the presiding Judge affirmed the judgment of the magistrate; and the defendant now moved to reverse the decision of his Honor, on the ground:
    That he was an inn-keeper, and had a lien on the plaintiff’s money, until the proper change was tendered at the proper place.
    Hammond, for the motion,
    submitted the question on the brief.
   Harper, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We concur with the magistrate and the presiding Judge. An inn-keeper has no right to detain the property of his guest, though he may detain his person; unless in the case of a horse, &e. which jjnay be detained for his feeding. Bae. Abr. Inns and Inn-keeperSjflDr^ But a horse cannot be detained for the meat of his master. Ib. ■ Nor does it appear that the defendant was an inn-keeper, to whom the privilege of detainer is given, because he is bound to receive guests. Another person has certainly no right to seize a pledge for a debt which may chance to be contracted with him. The suit might have been sustained before the tender of the thirty-seven and a half cents.

Motion refused.