ing all that would become due to the depositary in case of the deposit so continuing. NOTE. The purpose of receiving the deposit by the depositary being the compensation he was to obtain for keeping it, which being fully paid by the depositor, his contract is ended, and the depositary having no further interest in the thing deposited, it is under the law of bailments manifestly just that the depositor retake the deposit. ARTICLE IV. INNKEEPERS. SECTION 1859. Innkeeper's liability. 1860. How exempted from liability. er's 1859. An imkeeper is liable for all losses of or Innkeepinjuries to personal property placed by his guests liability. under his care, unless occasioned by an irresistible superhuman cause, by a public enemy, by the negligence of the owner, or by the act of some one whom he brought into the inn. NOTE.-An innkeeper is an insurer, and liable for all losses (Gile vs. Libby, 36 Barb., p. 70; Chute vs. Wiggins, 14 Johns., p. 175), as in case of fire (Hulett vs. Swift, 42 Barb, p. 230) or injuries (Washburn vs. Jones, 14 Barb., p. 193; Shaw vs. Berry, 31 Me., p. 478; Dawson vs. Chamney, 5 Q. B., p. 164) of or to personal property of his guests (Ingolsbee vs. Wood, 36 Barb., p. 452; Hursh vs. Byers, 29 Mo., p. 469; Ewart vs. Stark, 8 Rich. L., p. 423; Grinnell vs. McCook, 3 Hill, p. 485; Wintermate vs. Clarke, 5 Sandf., p. 242; Gelley vs. Clerk, Cro. Jac., p. 188; see Washburn vs. Jones, 14 Barb., p. 193; McDonald vs. Edgerton, 5 id., p. 560; Berkshire Woolen Co. vs. Proctor, 7 Cush., p. 417) "Placed under his care."-McDonald vs. Edgerton, 5 Barb., p. 560; Piper vs. Manny, 21 Wend., p. 282; Clute vs. Wiggins, 14 Johns., p. 175; Richmond vs. Smith, 8 B. & C., p. 9; Burgess vs. Clements, 4 M. & Selw., p. 306. The innkeeper is not responsible for goods which are not, in any proper sense, under his charge.-Farnworth vs. Packwood, 1 Stark., p. 249; Sneider vs. Geiss, 1 Yeates, p. 34; Hawley vs. Smith, 25 Wend., p. 642; see Burgess vs. Clements, 4 M. & Selw., p. 306. "Unless the cause is irresistible and su How exempted from liability. perhuman." The liability of an innkeeper is regarded as the same as that of a common carrier, according to the weight of American authority.-Hulett vs. Swift, 42 Barb., p. 230; Piper vs. Manny, 21 Wend., p. 282; Clute vs. Wiggins, 14 Johns., p. 175; Shaw vs. Berry, 31 Me., p. 478; Mateer vs. Brown, 1 Cal., p. 221; see McDonald vs. Edgerton, 5 Barb., p. 560: Richmond vs. Smith, 8 B. & C., p. 9. To the contrary, see Merritt vs. Claghorn, 23 Vt., p. 177; Dawson vs. Chamney, 5 Q. B., p. 164. By negligence of the owner."— Purvis vs. Coleman, 21 N. Y., p. 111; Armistead vs. Wilde, 17 Q. B., p. 261; Burgess vs. Clements, 4 M. & Selw., p. 306; Fowler vs. Dorlon, 24 Barb., p. 384. "Or the act of one who brought him to the inn."Calye's Case, 8 Co. Rep., p. 32; Red. on Carr., etc., Sec. 595, and Note 1. McDaniels vs. Robinson, 26 Vt., pp. 316-335, fixes an innkeeper's responsibility as follows: He is presumptively "responsible for all injurics happening to the goods of his guests, and by them intrusted to his care," and that he cannot exonerate himself except by showing that he did all to insure their safety which it was in his power to do, and there was no default of his servants or guests. An innkeeper is one who, without previous agreement as to time or terms, receives as guests all who visit his house.-Mateer vs. Brown, 1 Cal., p. 221; Carter vs. Hobbs, 12 Mich., p. 52. The burden of proof is on the innkeeper to show that the loss or injury occurred without his fault.Johnson vs. Richardson, 17 Ill., p. 302. "In other words," says Hilliard on Torts, Vol. 2, Chap. 45, p. 529,2 1, an innkeeper is liable for damages happening in his inn to the goods of his guest, unless it is caused by the act of God or the public enemy, or by the fault, direct or implied, of the guest." A different understanding may of course be had by agreement or a special contract, but only in such cases as the law recognizes or provides for common carriers to stipulate against their own negligence. See note to Sec. 2168, post. 66 1860. If an innkeeper keeps a fireproof safe, and gives notice to a guest, either personally or by putting up a printed notice in a prominent place in the room occupied by the guest, that he keeps such a safe, and will not be liable for money, jewelry, documents, or other articles of unusual value and small compass, unless placed therein, he is not liable, except so far as his own acts contribute thereto, for any loss of or injury to such articles, if not deposited with him, and not required by the guest for present use. NOTE. This section affords an opportunity for innkeepers, by their own acts, to relieve themselves to a certain extent from what might be termed the extreme stringency of the rule in the text of the preceding section, and from the rigor with which it was always enforced, as seen from the decisions quoted there. This means of defense is afforded by and rests alone in the statute. The cases of Purvis vs. Coleman, 1 Bosw., p. 322; 21 N. Y. (7 Smith), p. 111, and Gile vs. Libby, 36 Barb., p. 70, are on this point. ARTICLE V. FINDING. SECTION 1864. Obligation of finder. 1867. Reward, etc., to finder. 1868. Finder may put thing found on storage. 1869. When finder may sell the thing found. 1870. How sale is to be made. 1871. Surrender of thing to the finder. 1872. Thing abandoned. of finder. 1864. One who finds a thing lost is not bound to obligation take charge of it, but if he does so he is thenceforward a depositary for the owner, with the rights and obligations of a depositary for hire. NOTE. This section, and some of the ensuing ones, Finder to notify owner. Claimant to prove is negligent in losing it, it furnishes no very good reason why the finder should apologize for his own negligence by setting up that of the owner (see Sec. 1814 and note, ante).-Edw. on Bailm., Title "Finder," p. 55. Finder put to may recover necessary expense. 1865. If the finder of a thing knows or suspects who is the owner, he must, with reasonable diligence, give him notice of the finding; and if he fails to do so, he is liable in damages to the owner, and has no claim to any reward offered by him for the recovery of the thing, or to any compensation for his trouble or expenses. NOTE. This provision is manifestly just, and accords with the requirement of notice in Sec. 1825, ante. It is furthermore in strict conformity with Part III, Title VII, Chap. VI, of the Political Code Cal., and particularly Sec. 3136 thereof. The Penal Code of California, by Sec. 485, punishes one finding and appropriating lost property without an effort to find the owner, under certain circumstances, as guilty of larceny. See, also, Edw. on Bailm., Title "Finder," p. 55. 1863. The finder of a thing may, in good faith, ownership. before giving it up, require reasonable proof of ownership from any person claiming it. Reward, etc., to finder. NOTE.-Edw. on Bailm., p. 55, Title "Finder;" see, also, Story on Bailm., 108. If the ownership was doubtful or the right was disputed, the depositary might detain the property until the right was ascertained, and in this case he acts as a judicial depositary or sequestrator. See note to preceding section, referring to Political Code, Art. I, Chap. II, Sec. 3136, et seq., as to proof of ownership. 1867. The finder of a thing is entitled to compensation for all expenses necessarily incurred by him in its preservation, and for any other service necessarily performed by him about it, and to a reasonable reward for keeping it. NOTE. See provisions of the Political Code referred to supra in this Article, as to compensation; Story on Bailm., ? 121. The depositary is generally entitled to be reimbursed all necessary expenses to which he has been subjected for the preservation of the deposit, and the Roman and French law gave indemnity for all 1868. The finder of a thing may exonerate himself from liability at any time by placing it on storage with any responsible person of good character, at a reasonable expense. NOTE.-It does not seem just to compel the finder to keep the property in his own charge. On the other hand, he should not be allowed to put the loser to unnecessary expense. In Story on Bailm., 285 (in referring to Doct. & Stud. Dial., 2 Ch., p. 38, St. German, it is said: "If (the goods found) be laid in a house that by chance is burned, or if he deliver them to another to keep that runneth away with them, I think he be discharged;" but in 86 Story says this doctrine is very unsatisfactory.-Musgrave vs. Agden, Owen R., p. 141; 2 Ld. Raym., p. 909, per Gould, J; Noy Maxims, Chap. 43, p. 92. Use of the found article makes the finder liable for injuries to it, but non-use relieves him to a great extent. Storage is a way in which an owner might reasonably dispose of his goods not in use. 1869. The finder of a thing may sell it, if it is a thing which is commonly the subject of sale, when the owner cannot, with reasonable diligence, be found, or, being found, refuses upon demand to pay the lawful charges of the finder, in the following cases: 1. When the thing is in danger of perishing, or of losing the greater part of its value; or, 2. When the lawful charges of the finder amount to two thirds of its value. NOTE. This provision is new, and somewhat extends the powers of the finder of lost goods, as set forth in Art. I, Chap. VI, Title VII, Part III, Political Code. "Lost money and goods."-Sec. 3136, et seq. 1870. A sale under the provisions of the last section must be made in the same manner as the sale of a thing pledged. NOTE. For the rules governing such a sale, see the |