Page images
PDF
EPUB

the demurrer was not good; and so the rule of the court was, Quod querens nil capiat per billam.

Nota. That the like case, as this principal case is, was in this court. Termin. Trin. 9 Jac. B. R., between Skipwith plaintiff, against I. S. an inukeeper (in a trover, and conversion for his horse, brought to the inn, by a stranger, and there detained for his meat) argued by the four judges, and the court therein divided WILLIAMS & CROKE Justices, That the innkeeper may keep the horse till he be paid for his meat.

YELVERTON & FENNER, Justices, è contra, touching this matter, vide prima pars, fol. 170.

Vide also, the custom of London, for an innkeeper to have a horse praised and sold for the meat he had eaten. Termino Trinit. 10 Jac. B. R. 1 pars, fol. 207. Mosse plaintiff, against mownsend defendant.

STIRT v. DRUNGOLD.
KING's Bench. 1617.

[Reported 3 Bulst. 289.] In an action upon the case, for a trover, and conversion, the plaintiff declares, and shows that 20 Septembris 14 Jac. he was possessed of a horse, a saddle, a bridle, and a saddle-cloth, as of his own proper goods and chattels, and he being so thereof possessed, the same day and year, he casually lost them, the which, the same day and year, came to the bands of the defendant, and he sciens them to be the goods of the plaintiff, refused to deliver them, being requested so to do, but, afterwards, (S.) 1 Octobris 14 Jac., did convert them to his own proper use, ad damnum querentis, 30 l. unde actio.

The defendant pleads, and sets forth, that before these goods came into his possession by trover, as in the declaration is expressed, and before the conversion, (S.) by the space of two years last past, he did keep a common inn, called the Sword and Buckler in Holburne, in the parish of St. Gyles in campis, the which was a common hostry. And that before the time of the conversion laid, one William Hadlane was

inn, with the saddle, and he did then request the defendant to keep the horse there at meat, and so he did for the time and space of seven weeks, which came unto 23s. and that afterwards, (S.) 6 Novembris 14 Jac., the plaintiff came thither and demanded his horse, the defendant answered, that it he would pay him for his meat he had eaten, he would deliver him, wbich to do he refused, and for his satisfaction, he detained the horse, upon which plea, the plaintiff demurred in law.

The whole court clear of opinion for the defendant, and that he might well keep the horse until satisfaction was made unto him for his meat. And so by the rule of the court, judgment was given for the defendant, that his plea was good, and the plaintiff had no cause of demurrer, and therefore the judgment of the court was, Quod querens nil capiat per billam.

But some question was made whether he might retain the saddle, bridle, and cloth as well as the horse.

BROADWOOD v. GRANARA.

EXCHEQUER. 1854.

(Reported 10 Exch. 417.] This was a case stated for the opinion of the court by consent of the plaintiffs and defendant, and by order of a judge.

The declaration stated that the defendant converted to his own use the plaintiffs' goods, – that is to say, a boudoir grand-pianoforte. The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; secondly, that the goods were not the plaintiffs'. Upon wbich issues were joined.

The plaintiffs are, and at the time of the alleged conversion were, in partnership as manufacturers of pianofortes, in Great Pulteney Street, London. The defendant was, and is, the proprietor of an inn or hotel, called the Hotel de l'Europe, in Leicester Place, Leicester Square.

In March, 1853, a Monsieur Hababier, a foreigner and professional pianist, went to reside at the defendant's hotel, and remained there, occupying apartments, and occasionally taking his meals in the house, for some months. On the 28th of March Monsieur Hababier, then residing at the hotel, as before mentioned, went to the manufactory of the plaintiffs in Great Pulteney Street, and requested the use or loan of a grand-pianoforte. It has been, and is, usual for the plaintiffs to lend pianofortes to musical artists without charge; and in compliance with this request a grand-pianoforte was sent to the before-mentioned hotel for the use of Monsieur Hababier. This pianoforte remained at the hotel in possession of Monsieur Hababier, in his apartments, until the 9th of June following, when it was taken away and replaced by a boudoir grand-pianoforte, also supplied by the plaintiffs, without charge, to Monsieur Hababier.

Monsieur Hababier remained at the hotel until the 27th of June, and during that time incurred a bill for the use of the apartments, and for board, hire of carriages, and other accommodation, to a considerable amount. Some payments were made on account, but at the time of the demand and refusal hereinafter mentioned there was a balance due from him to the defendant of £16 3s. 5d., consisting in part of use of apartments, &c., after the 9th of June.

On the 27th of June the plaintiffs' clerk applied to the defendant for the last-mentioned pianoforte, and requested that it might be delivered to him for the plaintiffs. He, at the same time, handed to the defend

ant a written authority from Monsieur Hababier to deliver it to the plaintiff's. The defendant declined to deliver up the pianoforte. On the following day the clerk again went to the house of the defendant, taking with him a van and two porters, and again demanded the pianoforte. On this occasion the defendant asked him if he had brought any money, and being answered in the negative, said, “ Unless Messrs Broadwood pay my bill for the rent of the apartments I will not give up the piano."

It is admitted, for the purposes of this case, that the hotel of the defendant was and is an inn; and that the defendant was and is entitled to the rights of an innkeeper.

The defendant at all times knew the pianoforte in question was not the property of Monsieur Hababier, but that of the plaintiffs ; and the plaintiffs at all times knew that the said Monsieur Hababier was stopping at an hotel. The balance due to the defendant from Monsieur Hababier is still unpaid.

The question for the opinion of the court is, whether, under the above circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the action. If the court shall be of opinion that the action is maintainable, the verdict is to be entered for the plaintiffs, with £100 damages. If the court shall be of opinion that the defendant had a right to detain the pianoforte, then the verdict is to be entered for the defendant.

Watson, for the plaintiffs.
Willes, for the defendant.

POLLOCK, C. B. We are all of opinion that the lien claimed by the defendant cannot prevail. I need not go through the series of decisions referred to, or the propositions propounded at the bar, because the limited ground on which I think the plaintiffs entitled to judgment is this : that there is no case which decides that an innkeeper has a right of lien under such circumstances as these. This is the case of goods, not brought to the inn by a traveller as his goods, either upon bis coming to or whilst staying at the inn, but they are goods furnished for his temporary use by a third person, and known by the innkeeper to belong to that person. I shall not inquire whether, if the pianoforte bad belonged to the guest; the defendant would have had a lien on it. It is not necessary to decide that point, for the case finds that it was known to the defendant that the pianoforte was not the property of the guest, and that it was sent to him for a special purpose. Under these circumstances I am clearly of opinion that the defendant has no lien.

PARKE, B. I am of the same opinion. It is not necessary to advert to the decisions on the subject of an innkeeper's lien, because this is not the case of goods brought by a guest to an inn in that sense in which the innkeeper has a lien upon them ; but it is the case of goods sent to the guest for a particular purpose, and known by the innkeeper to be the property of another person. It therefore seems to me that there is no pretence for saying that the defendant has any lien. The principle on which an innkeeper's lien depends is, that he is

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

nces, the plaintiffs ante action is maintainalitehe court

plaintiffs. The defendant declined to deliver up the pianoforte. On the following day the clerk again went to the house of the defendant, taking with him a van and two porters, and again demanded the pianoforte. On this occasion the defendant asked him if he had brought any money, and being answered in the negative, said, “ Unless Messrs Broadwood pay my bill for the rent of the apartments I will not give up the piano."

It is admitted, for the purposes of this case, that the hotel of the defendant was and is an inn; and that the defendant was and is entitled to the rights of an innkeeper.

The defendant at all times knew the pianoforte in question was not the property of Monsieur Hababier, but that of the plaintiffs ; and the plaintiffs at all times knew that the said Monsieur Hababier was stopping at an hotel. The balance due to the defendant from Monsieur Hababier is still unpaid.

The question for the opinion of the court is, whether, under the ahore circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the action. If the court shall be of opinion that the action is maintainable, the verdict is to be entered for the plaintiffs, with £100 damages. If the court shall be of opinion that the defendant had a right to detain the pianoforte, then the verdict is to be entered for the defendant.

Watson, for the plaintiffs. Willes, for the defendant. POLLOCK, C. B. We are all of opinion that the lien claimed by the defendant cannot prevail. I need not go through the series of decisions referred to, or the propositions propounded at the bar, because the limited ground on which I think the plaintiffs entitled to judgment is this: that there is no case which decides that an innkeeper has a right of lien under such circumstances as these. This is the case of goods, not brought to the inn by a traveller as his goods, either upon his coming to or whilst staying at the inn, but they are goods furnished for his temporary use by a third person, and known by the innkeeper to belong to that person. I shall not inquire whether, if the pianoforte had belonged to the guest, the defendant would have had a lien on it. It is not necessary to decide that point, for the case finds that it was known to the defendant that the pianoforte was not the property of the guest, and that it was sent to him for a special purpose. Under these circumstances I am clearly of opinion that the defendant has no lien.

PARKE, B. I am of the same opinion. It is not necessary to advert to the decisions on the subject of an innkeeper's lien, because this is not the case of goods brought by a guest to an inn in that sense in which the innkeeper has a lien upon them ; but it is the case of goods sent to the guest for a particular purpose, and known by the innkeeper to be the property of another person. It therefore seems to me that there is no pretence for saying that the defendant has any lien. The principle on which an innkeeper's lien depends is, that he is

« PreviousContinue »