3 Story on Bailm. § 470; Jones on Bailm. 94; Com. Dig. Action on the Case for Negligence, B.; Kent v. Shuckard, 2 B. & Ad. 803; Calye'a Case, 8 Co. 32; 2 Kent, Comm. 592, 593.

4 Towson v. Havre de Grace Bank, 6 Harr. & Johns. 47.

5 See Albin v. Presby, 8 N. H. 408; Simon v. Miller, 7 La. An. 360.

6 Story on Bailm. § 471; Bennett v. Mellor, 5 T. R. 276; Calye's Case, 8 Co. 32; 1 Black. Comm. § 452; 2 Kent, Comm. 593; Quinton v. Courtney, 1 Hayw. 40; Clute v. Wiggins, 14 Johns. 175; Newson p. Axon, 1 M'Cord, 509; Piper v. Manny, 21 Wend. 282; Kent v. Shuckard, 2 B. & Ad. 803; Richmond v. Smith, 8 B. & C. 9; Towson v. Havre de Grace Bank, 6 Harr. & Johns. 47. See Kellogg v. Sweeney, 1 Lans. 403; Read v. Amidon, 41 Vt. 15; Packard v. Northcraft, 2 Met. (Ky.) 439; Epps v. Hinds, 27 Miss. 658.

7 Kent v. Shuckard, 2 B. & Ad. 803; 2 Kent, Comm. 592; Calye's Case, 8 Co. 32; Bennett v. Mellor, 8 T. R. 273; Berkshire Woollen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. 417.

§ 911. Whenever articles are put into the custody or under the care of the innkeeper or his servants, the innkeeper is liable in case of loss. This liability extends to all articles of baggage, to whatever extent or value, and is not limited in amount, as money may be.3 And if an innkeeper put a horse belonging to his guest out to pasture, without his request, he will be responsible, if there be any injury or loss occasioned thereby. It would be otherwise, however, if the request of the guest be expressly or impliedly given.4 So, also, if the traveller follow the direction of the innkeeper or his servant in the disposition of his goods, the same rule obtains. Thus, an innkeeper will be responsible for the safe-keeping of the goods of a traveller stopping at the inn for the night, if the carriage or wagon containing them be deposited in a place designated by the servant of the innkeeper, even although it should be an open space near the highway.5 So, also, if the landlord be ordered to place the goods under the roof, and he omit to comply with the order, he is responsible. The same rule would apply, also, if the usage or custom of the place imposed upon him the duty of placing the goods in a particular place, or under roof, although no order be given by the guest in relation thereto. Thus, where a traveller directed his horse to be put in the stable, and gave no direction about the gig, and the gig was left out, and stolen, the innkeeper was held liable, under an implied promise to take the gig into the stable.6 But if the usage of the place be to leave carriages in an open shed or to leave the stable door unlocked, and the circumstances be such as to indicate the traveller's assent to such an arrangement, the innkeeper would not probably be held responsible in case they were stolen.1 And if the traveller assume to take charge of his own goods, and leave them outside the inn,2 - as if he leave his loaded wagon under an open shed near the highway, making no request of the innkeeper to take custody of it, and not being directed by him or his servants to leave it in such place, - the innkeeper would not be responsible, notwithstanding it be usual to stand loaded teams in the place.3 So, also, if a traveller hire a room to deposit his goods in, and use it as a warehouse, having exclusive possession, and keeping the key, he assumes personal responsibility.4 Again, if he place his goods in the exclusive keeping of another person than the innkeeper, the innkeeper is not responsible.5 So, also, if an innkeeper request his guest to place his goods in a particular room, under lock and key, or he will not be responsible for them, and the guest neglect or refuse so to do, and leave them in an outer court, the innkeeper will be exonerated.6 But a custom or usage at an inn for guests to leave their valuables at the bar, or in charge of the innkeeper or his servants, is not binding upon any guest, unless he has actual notice of it; and in such case evidence of such custom at other inns is inadmissible evidence;7 and it has been held, that even though it be the custom of travellers to leave their driving boxes in the commercial room, the traveller may be guilty of such gross negligence, in repeatedly opening his box and counting his money in the presence of many persons in the room, and then leaving it so insecurely fastened as to open without a key, that the innkeeper would not be liable for a theft of the money.1 In general, the room assigned by the innkeeper to his guest is the proper place of deposit for his luggage.2

1 Quinton v. Courtney, 1 Hayw. 40.

2 Clute v. Wiggins, 14 Johns. 175; Piper v. Manny, 21 Wend. 282. 3 See Sasseen v. Clark, 37 Ga. 242 (1867).

4 Calye's Case, 8 Co. 32; Story on Bailm. § 478, 479; Hawley v. Smith, 25 Wend. 642.

5 Piper v. Manny, 21 Wend. 282; Hill v. Owen, 5 Blackf. 323; Richmond v. Smith, 8B.&C.9; Jones v. Tyler, 3 Nev. & Man. 576; 8. c. 1 Ad. & El. 522.

6 Jorns v. Tyler, 3 Nev. & Man. 576; s. C. 1 Ad. & El. 522.

1 Dansey v. Richardson, 3 El. & B. 144; 25 Eng. Law & Eq. 91; 2 Kent, Coinm. 592, 4th ed.; Story on Bailm. § 478.

2 Armistead v. Wilde, 17 Q. B. 261; 6 Eng. Law & Eq. 349; Calye's Case, 8 Co. 32.

3 Albin v. Presby, 8 N. H. 408; Hawley v. Smith, 25 Wend. 642; Burgess v. Clements, 4 M. & S. 306; Farnworth v. Packwood, 1 Stark. 249. See also 2 Kent, Comm. 592, 593.

4 Burgess v. Clements, 4 M. & S. 306; Farnworth v. Packwood, 1 Stark. 249.

5 Sneider v. Geiss, 1 Yeates, 34.

6 Story on Bailm. § 479; Calye's Case, 8 Co. 32.

7 Berkshire Woollen Co. v. Proctor, 7 Cush. 417.

§ 912. Again, an innkeeper may become liable for goods stolen before they come to the inn, - and if an innkeeper should advertise to convey his guests free of charge from a railroad station to his house, together with their baggage, and the baggage of a guest should be lost or stolen on the way from the station to the inn, through want of care in the driver, the innkeeper would be liable.3 And it has been decided that he may be held liable for the loss of goods left for a reasonable time after the departure of a guest.4