Case Name: D. B. Clayton and Wife vs. H. L. Butterfield
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1857-01
Citations: 10 Rich. 300
Docket Number: 
Parties: D. B. Clayton and Wife vs. H. L. Butterfield.
Judges: O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Whither, and Munro, JJ., concurring.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 300–302

Head Matter:
D. B. Clayton and Wife vs. H. L. Butterfield.
Where several, as a father and his two daughters, come in company and put up at an inn, the goods of one cannot be detained for the board of all, but only for his or her own proportion.
Where a father and his two daughters put up at an inn, and the board of all is charged to the father, and he is sued for it, and, being held to bail, takes the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors’ Act, the landlord has no lien upon the trunk of one of the daughters, for the board due him.
BEFORE O’NEALL, J., AT CHARLESTON, SPRING TERM, 1856.
The report of Ms Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows:
“ This was an action of trover, to recover two trunks and a hat box, with their contents.
“ The defendant is the keeper of the Pavilion hotel.
“William Thomas, with two of his daughters, Mary A., and the plaintiff who was then unmarried, came to the defendant’s hotel on the 9th November, 1854, and remained until 3d January, 1855 ; his bill, after deducting payments, was two hundred and forty-six dollars and sixty-nine cents. When he and his daughters left, the defendant refused to deliver to the plaintiff’s wife the articles for which this action was brought, claiming to have a lien on them, for the board of her father, herself, and sister. After her marriage with the plaintiff, he tendered her share, one-third of the defendant’s bill for board, eighty-two dollars and nine cents. The defendant still, on demand, refused to deliver the articles, claiming to have a lien on them for the whole board of Thomas and his daughters.
“ The articles sued for were proved to be the property of Mrs. Clayton, and tbeir value was proved to be five hundred and sixty-seven dollars and twenty-five cents.
“ The defendant sued Thomas for the whole bill, and held him to bail; he was arrested; applied for, and obtained the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors’ Act. The jury were told, that if the plaintiff’s right of property and the conversion were established, then, they would be entitled to recover, unless the defendant’s lien could prevail.
“ That the defendant had a lien on transient, boarders’ property, in his hotel, was indubitable. But 1 did not think, that because these persons came in company, the property of each became thereby liable for the board of all. Indeed, in this case, I did not see how the defendant could, now, set up his lien against the plaintiffs, for the following reasons:
1. He had charged Wm. Thomas alone with the board of * himself and daughters.
2. He had sued him for the whole bill, and he had been discharged under the Insolvent Debtors’' Act.4
“In either point of view, there was no debt of Mrs. Clayton; and where there was no debt, there could be no lien.
“ The value of the plaintiff’s (Mrs. Clayton’s) property consisting mainly of her wardrobe, in the trunks, was proved to be five hundred and sixty-seven dollars and twenty-five cents. Inasmuch as the plaintiffs had tendered one-third of the whole board, eighty-two dollars and nine cents, I instructed the jury, in their verdict, to deduct that much from the value proved. They accordingly did so; and found for the plaintiffs four hundred and eighty-five dollars and sixteen cents.
The defendant appealed, and now moved this Court for a new trial, upon the grounds:
1. Because, it is respectfully submitted, that his Honor erred in charging tbe jury that the suit of the defendant against William Thomas destroyed his lien against the goods in his possession.
2. Because, it is respectfully submitted, that his Honor erred in charging the jury that the goods of each person could only be detained for their respective debts or bills ; whereas, it is respectfully submitted, that under the case proved, the goods of all were responsible jointly and severally for the debt.
Mowry, for motion.
Anderson, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This Court concurs in the instructions of the Judge below to the jury.
The motion is dismissed.
O'Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Whither, and Munro, JJ., concurring.
Motion dismissed.