Case Name: Robert Carlisle v. John Quattlebaum
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1831-06
Citations: 2 Bail. 452
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert Carlisle v. John Quattlebaum.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 452–453

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.