Story Case

James Linn, with his wife and four children, resided in Chicago, until June 1, 1915. In June of that year, the Linn family discontinued its home. The wife and four children moved to Lakewood, Michigan, a summer resort fifty miles from the city, residing at the Lakewood Inn, a hotel. They planned to remain there indefinitely, possibly during the winter. The father, Mr. Linn, visited the family about twice a month, usually remaining at the hotel over Saturday and Sunday. In August, 1915, while the father was visiting the family, and they were all out on the lake, robbers entered the hotel, taking many valuables, including luggage belonging to Mr. Linn personally, and property of the wife and children. "When they tried to recover from the hotel company for the loss, it offered to pay Mr. Linn for his personal losses, but refused to pay for the property stolen from the wife and children. It based this difference on the contention that only a limited obligation was owing the wife and children, since, as to them, it did not render hotel services, and the loss was not caused by its own negligence; therefore, no recovery could be had. As to Mr. Linn, however, it admitted the relationship of hotel keeper, and that it was, therefore, liable for the loss, although the loss was not caused by its own negligence. Is this a correct distinction to make?

Ruling Court Case No. 1. State Vs. Steele, Volume 106, North Carolina Re-Ports, Page 766; Volume 19 American State Reports, Page 573

Steele, the manager of a hotel, was arrested and prosecuted for having used force against one Weaver, in ejecting him from the porch of the hotel. Weaver was the proprietor of a livery near the hotel, and had come upon the porch in response to a summons from one of the guests. Steele had made an agreement with one livery man to secure for him all the livery business of the hotel, for a share of the profit, and had notified all the other livery men to keep out of the hotel premises. He argued that Weaver was not a guest or a traveler, so that he had no right to enter the hotel, and that therefore he could be lawfully put out, with the use of force if necessary. The state denied the right of an innkeeper to exclude persons with whom the guests might reasonably be expected to desire to deal, and denied the right of the defendant to make the contract whereby he shared in the profit of the livery man to whom he afforded the exclusive privilege.

The court held that the innkeeper has not only a right, but even a duty, to exclude from the hotel persons who desire to solicit business from the guests. Mr. Justice Avery said: "The duty and legal obligation resting upon the landlord is to admit only such guests who are travelers and demand accommodation. He has the right to refuse to allow even travelers who are manifestly so filthy, drunken, or profane as to prove disagreeable to others who are inmates, to enter his inn for food and shelter. He may prohibit the entrance of any persons for the purpose of plying his guests with solicitations for patronage in their business ; and especially is this true when the nature of the business is such that it would probably lead to annoyance of the guests. When persons, otherwise unobjectionable, enter a hotel, not as guests, but intent on pleasure or profit, to be derived from intercourse with its inmates, they are there, not of right, but under a permission or license from the proprietor which he may revoke at any time. The landlord may establish a news stand, barber shop, laundry, or livery stable in connection with his hotel, or may contract with the proprietor of such a business to share in its profits for securing the patronage of his guests for that business. For this purpose, he has the full right to close his house against one who attempts to injure the business in which he is interested."

Since Weaver was not rightfully upon the porch of the hotel, he could be required to leave. Upon his refusal, such force as was necessary to eject him could lawfully be used, and for the use of such force only, the proprietor cannot be convicted of a criminal assault. Therefore, the court held that the defendant Steele should be acquitted.

Ruling Court Case No. 2. Horner Vs. Harvey, Volume 3 New Mexico Reports, Page 197; Volume 5 Pacific Reporter, Page 329

Several conductors on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad, joined in a plan for renting a room in Harvey's hotel in Deming, the terminus of the railroad. They paid a monthly rental, and did not register at each arrival, but went freely in and out of the room. They used it for sleeping, for making up their accounts at the end of a run, and for games or other amusements between trips. After about four months of this arrangement, Horner, one of the conductors and the plaintiff in this suit, brought into the room a satchel containing over $700 in gold coin. While he was asleep that night, the satchel was opened and the coin stolen. Horner brought suit for the theft against Harvey, on the ground that, as the keeper of a public inn, he was liable for the loss of any of the property of his guests, even though the loss was not in any degree caused by his own fault or lack of diligence. Harvey, the defendant, did not deny that an innkeeper assumes an absolute liability for property of his guests, but denied that Horner was a guest, within the spirit of the rule, because he was not a traveler, but a permanent lodger.

The validity of this defense was upheld by the court in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Axtell. The court said: "The liability of innkeepers is strict, and justly so; but it is a liability limited to their relation to travelers or wayfaring men. The law of civilized countries benignantly protects men away from home. When the traveler comes to an inn and is accepted, he instantly becomes a guest; the innkeeper, when he accepts him and his goods, becomes his insurer. But he must be a guest, and before he can be a guest, he must be a traveler. When he ceases to be a traveler, or a transient or wayfaring man, and takes up a permanent abode, even in an inn, he ceases to be an object of the law's especial solicitude, and he is no longer a guest, but a boarder; no longer a traveler, but a citizen. The length of time a man remains at an inn makes no difference, so long as he retains his character as a traveler. But a man who is regularly employed upon a certain line of railroad, and who regularly stops off at each end of his run, is not a traveler, nor a guest. He is a permanent citizen of the place."

The court decided that Horner was not a guest of Harvey's inn, because he was not a traveler. He was not, therefore, given the special protection that is afforded a guest or traveler, and Harvey was not liable to him for the loss of his property. Judgment was, therefore, given for the defendant, Harvey, and the action was dismissed.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It has been stated that a public service company must serve all who apply. This statement is again subject to several limitations. Public service companies are created to give the greatest good to the greatest number, and, therefore, reasonable rules and reasonable restrictions can be made as to this service. Thus, a steamboat company or railroad company is not bound to furnish traveling conveniences for those who wish to engage in their vehicles in the business of selling books, or food, or in any occupation which interferes with the company's own interest or that of the public.

The law, itself, by custom, has limited the obligation of public service companies. This is well illustrated by the rule which holds an innkeeper or hotel owner responsible only to travelers. That is, it is only as to dealing with travelers that the calling is affected with a public interest. This is based on the theory that the traveler is a helpless wayfarer in a strange. land, needing public protection.

In the leading case on the point, in England, Calyes Case, Volume 8 Coke Reports, Page 202, which established the law in this country, it is said: "Common inns are instituted for passengers and wayfaring men; and, therefore, if a neighbor, as a friend, at the request of the innkeeper, lodges there, and his goods are stolen, he shall not have an action against the inn-holder, because the protection is only for travelers."

This, of course, raises the question, "who is a traveler?" It is possible for a resident of the same locality to be a traveler. For instance, a man, on his way from his city office to his suburban home, who stopped at an inn to get dinner, was held to be a traveler. Justice Kennedy said in this case: "It does not seem to make any difference whether his journey be a long or a short one." But a man who takes a walk, and just before reaching home, goes into an inn to get a drink, is not a traveler, and cannot demand the accommodation he seeks. Nor, if he is injured or loses something while within the inn, can he recover, unless the innkeeper's carelessness caused the injury or the loss. But, if one is on a long walk for pleasure, and stops on his way for refreshment at an inn, he is entitled to be entertained as a traveler.

In a Tennessee case, where a man discontinued his home, and went to a hotel in the same town to live, he was classified as a boarder, and not a traveler. But in a leading New York case, the family of an army officer, stationed in a nearby post, were held to be guests of a hotel, although they remained for several months. This was on the ground that their stay was uncertain, since they would follow the father whenever he might be ordered elsewhere.

The Story Case is based upon the facts of a Minnesota case, where the court held that the father was a traveler, but that the wife and children were boarders, and that the hotel made a proper distinction in stating its liability. Whenever a person is in the town on an indefinite sojourn, and apparently has taken up his residence there, he can be ejected from the hotel as ceasing to be a traveler.