Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-12-06

tiff and his family were received there,
there can be but little doubt. Many at
mpte have been made to define what
shall be deemed public inn, though no
attempted definition is TO be found
among the unsuccessful definitions of the
Civil Code. Justice Story, in his work
on Bailments, section 475, says that an
inn keeper may be defined to be the
keeper of common inn for the lodging
and entertainment of travellers and pas
sengers, their horses and attendants, for
q reasonable compensation. 1t is
clear that this definition is too
broad, and it is undoubtedly
true as said in plaintiffs brief that the
definition of an inn has changed with
the change in the conditions and customs
of the country. Perhaps the best defini-
of Chancellor Kent, viz ga house kept
open publicly for the lodging and enter
tainment of Travellers" Applying this
definition to the evidence in the case, it
would be difficult to say why the Long
Beach hotel was not a public inn. The
testimony of: the manager Of the hotel
and President of the defendant corpora
ton, was to the effect that it was con-
Quoted as a hotel and boarding house for
the entertainment of the people. That
| if anyone applied for accommodations
and wished to stay few days he paid
transient rates; if he staid week or
more, he had rates reduced. That any
respectable person applying for enter
tainmept or lodgings would be received.
The fact that at the time plaintiff was
received a change had been made in the
plan of m anagement; that the bill of
fare was less elaborate and the number
of servants had been diminished, l do
not regard as material. The house was
still kept as an open house,
and anyone would be received and
entertained who would tolerate meals
served in what witness calls family style.
1t is this character of the house as being
an open house and not the scale upon
which it is conducted that determines
whether it be an inn or boarding house.
But while the Long Beach hotel was con-
Quoted as public inn and in go conduct
ing it the defendant was not exceeding
its corporate powers, it does not follow
that defendants duty towards plaintiff
was governed by tie law regulating the
liability of common inn-keepers The law
does not prohibit public inn-kaeper
from taking bosrders, and one cannot by
making his home at public inn thereby
insure his personal effects. An inn
keepers liability as an insurer extends
only to those who become his guests in
the character OF travellers. This ques ton
of who is q guest as distinguished from
boarder, is often difficult to determine.
1t cannot be determined by the duration
of his visit alone, nor by the fact
that he makes a special contract
by the day, week or month. The
question can be determined by no gen.
eral rule, but must depend upon all the
facts and circumstances in each particu-
lar case, The duration of the visit, the
terms of the contract, if there be any,
the character of the house, the purpose
of the visit, the question whether or not
plaintiff has home elsewhere, may all
be considered. From the evidence in
this case. it appears that the character
of the Long Beach hotel was of sea-
side house, rather than q commercial
hotel.
That plaintiff had been hotel man
and knew the character of the house.
That at the time Of taking up bis
quarters there he was engaged in no
business and had no house of his own,
but was boarding at the Nadeau hotel in
the city of Los Angeles.
That he went to the defendants hotel
under a contract to pay 800 per month
for the board of himself and family; that
the reason of his removal to Long Beach
was the delicate state of his wife's
health, and that it was his intention to
remain there as long as his wife's health
was benefited by the change. Taking
all of these facts into consideration, it
would seem to be impossible to arrive at
any conclusion other than that plaintiff
was boarder, as distinguished from O
guest, as the latter term is used in the
law of bailments. It is true that plain
tiff was under no contract to stay for
any definite length of time, and that he
would have removed from the place the
moment ne found it injurious to his
wife's health. This is apparently the
only circumstance that gives to plain
tiff's stay transitory character, or to
plaintiff the status of a traveller; and 1
do not regard it as sufficient.
Plaintiff would probably have removed
from any other house or boarding place
the moment his wife's health demanded
it. He was rot e1 necessitate traveller
as was the plaintiff held to be in the case
of Hancock versus Rand, "a N. Y. / and
that case can hardly be considered an
authority in point. But If in point, the
decision is not one which commends
itself to the judgment of the Court, or
which should, l think, be followed as
precedent.
IT person who is stopping at hotel
is for any reason unable to establish q
permanent home elsewhere, that fact
would, think, be circumstance tend
ing to show that he was there in
the character OF bosrder rather than
the reverse, and by what method of rea-
soning the Court in the above case held
that because the plaintiff had no per-
manent home of his own he must have
been guest and not boarder, am
unable to see. I am of opinion that the
Long Beach hotel was public inn, and
in maintaining it as such, defendant did
not exceed its corporate powers; but /
am also of opinion that plaintiffs status
was that of a boarder, not that of
guest; and that defendant, having exer-
cised ordinary diligence, cannot be held
liable for plaintiffs loss. Other ques-
tions were discussed in argument which
are unnecessary to consider. Defend
ant will draw findings and judgment ac-
cordingly.
W. H. CLARK, Judge.
November 20, 1889.