Burrows v. Trieber

Goldsborough, J., delivered the opinion of this Court: This case is presented for our consideration upon an exception taken by the appellant to the ruling of the Circuit Court for Allegany County, in granting the second and fourth prayers of the appellee. The counsel of the appellant having abandoned the fourth prayer, our attention will be confined to the second. The questions arising out of this prayer, are of sufficient moment to demand our serious consideration. One important question is, the liability of inn-keepers and the relative obligation of host and guest.

Many authorities have been produced by the counsel of the appellant, to show that the responsibility of an inn-keeper attaches from the time a guest, with his property, is infra hospitium. It is contended on the part of the appellee, that this responsibility is only presumptive, and may be released by proof that the loss is attributable to the gross personal negligence of the guest himself. By an examination of the authorities it is clear, that innkeepers are liablé for the goods of a guest which are brought by him within the inn, infra hospitium. See Story on Bailments, sec. 478. 5 Term Rep., 273. 2 Kent’s Com., 593, 594. 5 Barbour’s S. C. R. of N. Y., 560. ³²⁷ It is equally well settled, that a delivery of the goods of a guest into the custody of the inn-keeper is not necessary to charge him with them; for although the guest does not deliver them, or acquaint the inn-keeper with them, still the latter is bound to pay for them if they are stolen or carried away, even though the person who stole them or carried them away is unknown.

See Story on Bailments, sec. 579, cited with approbation in 5 Barbour, 560. The authorities fully sustain the doctrine, that it is not necessary, when the goods are proved to be lost, to prove