The person so taking possession of logs must use all reasonable care not to take such logs beyond the place of their original destination, if known, but may securely boom and keep possession of the same at or above such place; and the owner or person controlling such logs, if known, is to be forthwith notified of their whereabouts, and if satisfactory security be given for the amount of such proportion of charges and expenses, possession of the logs shall be given up (101). Timber drivers-New Brunswick.-By the Consolidated Act respecting Timber Drivers (102) it is enacted that the timber drivers, when called upon by any person interested, shall proceed to the river and take charge of the timber drive, determine the number of hands, rigging and implements required for the work, and apportion the number of men and materials to be furnished by each owner. If any owner does not within two days after written notice from the timber driver furnish such men and materials, they shall be provided by the driver, who shall hold the drive and have a lien thereon for all expenses, together with his own fees (103). If the same be not paid within 60 days after arriving at the rafting ground or market, the driver may sell the drive or any part thereof for the payment of the expenses and fees, first giving the owner notice if in the Province, and advertising the same for 30 days in three or more public places of the parish where the property may be (104). (101) R.S.O. 1897, c. 143, S. II. (102) Con. Stat. N. B., 1877, c. 109. CHAPTER XIII. LIEN OF INNKEEPERS AND BOARDING HOUSE Innkeeper's lien. An "inn" is a "house the owner of which holds out that he will receive all travellers and sojourners who are willing to pay a price adequate to the sort of accommodation provided, and who come in a situation in which they are fit to be received" (1). (1). An innkeeper, or keeper of a house providing general accommodation for wayfarers, whether or not it be known by the name of an inn or hotel, has a general lien on the goods of his guests (2). If the innkeeper receives a person as a traveller who is not really a traveller, he has the same rights against him, and the same liabilities to him as if he were a traveller, but he is not liable for refusing to receive a person who is not travelling (3). If he receives goods that he is not bound to receive, he is entitled to the same rights and is subject to the same liabilities respecting them as if he had received them being bound to do so (4). If the relation of guest is changed to that of a boarder, or if a person comes to the inn, not as a traveller but as a boarder, in such case the innkeeper has no other rights or liabilities with respect to the goods of such a person than a boarding house keeper (1) Thompson v. Lacy, 3 B. & Ald. 283. (2) Thompson v. Lacy, 3 B. & Ald. 283. (3) Newcombe v. Anderson (1886), 11 Ont. R. 665, 672; Walling v. Potter, 35 Conn. 183. (4) Threfall v. Borwick, L.R. 10 Q.B. 210. would have, and would not be liable for their safekeeping (5) except where by statute it is provided otherwise. It is a question of fact as to whether the relation is that of innkeeper and guest or of boarding house keeper and boarder (6); the relation does not depend upon the fact of the price to be paid being more or less than the usual price; nor does a traveller, who enters an inn as a guest, cease to be guest by proposing to remain a given number of days, nor by ascertaining the price that will be charged for his entertainment, nor by paying in advance for a part or the whole of his entertainment (7). In Ontario it is declared by statute that an innkeeper has a lien on the baggage and property of his guest for the value or price of any "food or accommodation" furnished to the guest; and, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the innkeeper is by the statute authorized, if the same remains unpaid for three months, to sell such baggage and property, after publishing the notice prescribed by the Act respecting Innkeepers (8). A tavernkeeper is, however, forbidden to keep the wearing apparel of any "servant or labourer" in pledge for any expenses incurred to a greater amount than $6; and on payment or tender of such sum or any less amount due, such wearing apparel must be immediately given up, whatever be the amount due by such servant or labourer (9). Under the Ontario statute the innkeeper has now what he had not at common law, i.e., a lien upon the (5) Newcombe v. Anderson, 11 Ont. R. 665, 673. (6) Hall v. Pike, 100 Mass. 495. (7) Berkshire v. Moody, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 417; Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 557. (8) R.S.O. c. 187. (9) R.S.O. 1897, c. 157, s. 6. goods of a person received by him into his house as a boarder, and upon the goods of a person who, being in his house as a guest, has changed his relation to that of a boarder; but it does not confer a lien in such case upon baggage and property brought by the boarder to the inn but belonging in fact to a third person (10). The words "for the value or price of price of any food or accommodation furnished to such guest, boarder or lodger" contained in section 2 of the Ontario Innkeepers' Act (11), do not restrict the lien to charges for the board, etc., of the guest personally, but will include also the board and lodging of his servants and the keep of his horses. The intention of the Act was to increase, not to diminish, the rights of a landlord (12). Extent of lien. An innkeeper must receive a traveller and his goods and is not bound to enquire whether or not the goods belong to his guest. He has a general lien upon all 'goods brought to the inn by a guest as his goods, or sent to the guest whilst staying at the inn and received by the innkeeper as the goods of the guest; and it makes no difference whether the goods do or do not belong to the guest, or whether the innkeeper knew to whom they belonged or not (13). So where a commercial traveller stayed at a hotel and incurred liabilities for board and lodging, and while he was there his employers sent him several lots of sewing machines for sale, it was held that the hotelkeeper had a lien upon the machines notwithstanding that before the liability was incurred the (10) Newcombe v. Anderson (1886), 11 Ont. R. 665, 682. (11) R.S.O. 1897, c. 187. (12) Huffman v. Walterhouse (1890), 19 Ont. R. 186. (13) Robins v. Gray (1895) 2 Q.B. 501. employers had given notice to him that the machines belonged to them and not to the traveller (14). But, if the chattel is not received as the guest's luggage but only to be used by him while he stayed at the hotel, the law relating to innkeepers would not apply. And where a piano was lent to a guest while he remained at the hotel and the hotelkeeper knew to whom the piano belonged, it was held that there was no right of detention or lien (15). Where, however, a person hired a piano and took it with other effects to an hotel where it was used by the hirer and his family, and the hotelkeeper did not know but that the guest owned the piano, he was held entitled to detain it as against the true owner (16). At common law an innkeeper had a lien on horses the property of his guest or which had been brought to his inn by a guest (17). An innkeeper has a lien on whatever goods he would be answerable for in case of loss (18). The lien is a general one on the horses and carriages and guest's goods conjointly for the whole amount of his bill; he is not restricted to a lien on the horses for the charges in respect of the horses, but has a lien on the horses for the guest's reasonable expenses (19). Where a man and his wife stay together at a hotel and the husband only is charged with the bill, the lien will nevertheless attach to goods which are the separate property of the wife (20). (14) Robins v. Gray (1895) 2 Q.B. 501. (16) Threfall v. Borwick L.R. 10 Q. B. 210. (17) Allen v. Smith 12 C.B.N.S. 638; Mulliner v. Florence 3 Q.B.D. 484. (18) Threfall v. Borwick L. R. 10 Q.B. 210. (19) Huffman v. Walterhouse (1890) 19 Ont. R. 186. (20) Gordon v. Silber 25 Q.B.D. 491. |