and perchance his own infancy and perhaps not.' Any one may claim the right of a guest who is of good character and demeanor and ready to pay for what he may call. One living in the same town cannot compel the inn-keeper to receive him.3 This duty of the inn-keeper to receive guests seems to have been weil understood and maintained in the earlier history of jurisprudence. Lord Kenyon said: "Inn-keepers are bound by law to receive guests who come to their inns; and are also bound to protect the property of their guests. They have no option, either to receive or reject guests, and as they cannot refuse to receive guests, so neither can they impose unreasonable terms upon them."4 Judge Coleridge says: "The inn-keeper is not to select his guests. He has no right to say to one, you shall come into my inn, and to another, you shall not, as every one coming and conducting himself in a proper 5 manner has a right to be received." If the host refuse to receive either man or horse, unless he have no room, he is liable to an action. It was said he might be compelled by the constable to receive guests.' A MISDEMEANOR TO REFUSE ADMISSION. The New York Penal Code, in section 381, declares that "a person who, either on his own account I, Addison on Torts, 938, but see Com. Dig., Vol. I, p. 413; 423 Note to Walling vs. Potter, 9 Am. Law Reg., N. S. 618, 620; 2, 3, WHEN ADMISSION REFUSED. 49 or as agent or officer of a corporation, carries on business as inn-keeper, or as common carrier of passengers, and refuses, without just cause or excuse to receive and entertain any guest, or to receive and carry any passenger, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” WHEN INN-KEEPERS MAY REFUSE TO RECEIVE. The inn-keeper will be justified in refusing to receive a guest who conducts himself in a disorderly or noisy manner, and he may, in such case, compel him to leave the inn, after he has become a guest.' It has been held that an inn-keeper is not bound to receive one whose notorious character as a thief furnishes good reason to suppose that he will purloin the goods. of his guests or his own; so he may prohibit the entry of one whose misconduct in other particulars, or whose filthy condition would subject his guests to annoyance.2 In the case of Markham vs. Brown just cited, the court held that an inn-keeper is bound, under proper limitations, to admit travelers and those also having business with them as such, and that if he gives a general license to enter his inn to some persons whose business is connected with his guests, in their character as travelers, he cannot lawfully exclude others, pursuing the same business who enter for a similar purpose. It was held in the case of Rex vs. Ivens, (supra,) that if a guest come to an inn drunk, or behave in an improper or indecent manner, the innkeeper is not bound to receive him. It was recently held in Maine that an inn-keeper 1, Howell vs. Jackson, 6 Carr. & Payne, 742; Moriarty vs. 2, is not justified in refusing to receive a member of a militia company as a guest, merely because other militiamen, received as guests on the same occasion, had misconducted themselves at the inn. The court, however, laid down the doctrine that the inn-keeper was not required by law to furnish entertainment for intoxicated or disorderly persons, and if he had reason to suspect that plaintiffs belonged to the same band of disorderly soldiers who had threatened to despoil his house, and that they were evil disposed towards him, or had conspired with the disorderly soldiers to harm his house, or guests, or if they were intoxicated or disorderly persons, then he would have been justified in refusing them entertainment.1 In a recent action against a common carrier for refusal to take plaintiff on defendant's steamboat, the judge charged that defendant had a right to refuse to admit persons who refuse to obey the reasonable regulations of the boat, or who are guilty of gross and vulgar habits of conduct, or who make disturbances on board, or whose characters are doubtful or dissolute, or suspicious, and a fortiori whose characters are equivocally bad. In commenting upon that case, the editor of the Albany Law Journal says: "The analogy between the rights and duties of innkeepers and common carriers is very close, so that this decision has a strong bearing on the rights of inn-keepers to refuse guests. We have little doubt that the courts would sustain an exception to the general rule, sufficiently broad to permit hotel-keep I, Atwater vs. Sanger, 76 Me., 538; 2, Jencks vs. Coleman, 2 Sumn., 221; NECESSITY OF TENDER. 51 ers to exclude persons of undoubtedly disreputable characters." I NECESSITY OF TENDERING PRICE OF ACCOMMO DATIONS. As to the necessity of a traveler making a tender to the inn-keeper in order to place the latter under obligations to receive him, it was held in England that a guest was not obliged to tender the price of entertainment. In a later case the court disagreed In a case arising If the inn-keeper with the doctrine of the case just cited, but the judges were not called upon to give a judicial judicial opinion on the point,3 and “a decision is only binding for such law as is necessarily decided therein." It has been stated on good authority that an offer to pay was unnecessary on the part of the guest.5 in Canada it was held necessary. refuse admission, as by slamming a door in the traveler's face, and if he could not see an open window, it was thought a tender would be unnecessary.' Again it is said that a guest is not entitled to be entertained unless he tender a fair remuneration for accommodations desired, as the inn-keeper is not obliged to give credit. However, when a guest is rejected, the fact that he has not made a tender is no defense, unless the rejection be placed on that ground.9 1, Albany Law Journal, Vol. 6, p. 69, Aug. 3, 1872; 2, Rex vs. Ivens, 7 Carr. & Payne, 213; 7, Fell vs. Knight, supra; 8, Bro. Action Sur. Case., 76; Bro. Contracts, 43; 9 Co., L PUBLIC AND CIVIL RIGHTS. The Legislature of this State, in 1873, passed an act "To provide for the protection of citizens in their civil and public rights," which provided as follows: Section 1. No citizen of this State shall, by reason of race, color or previous condition of servitude, be excepted or excluded from the full and equal enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege furnished by inn-keepers, by common carriers, whether on land or water, by licensed owners, managers or lessees of theaters, or other places of amusement, by trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers and other officers of common schools and public institutions of learning, and by cemetery associations. § 2. The violation of any part of the first section of this act shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and the party or parties violating the same shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a fine of not less than fifty dollars, or more than five hundred dollars. 3. Discrimination against any citizen on account of color, by the use of the word "white," or any other term in any law, statute, ordinance or regulation now existing in this State, is hereby repealed and overruled. The provisions of this statute were re-enacted in the New York Fenal Code, (Section 38,) which reads: No citizen of this State can by reason of race, color or previous condition of servitude, be excluded from the equal enjoyment of any accommodation, facility or privilege furnished by inn-keepers or common carriers, or by owners, managers or lessees of theaters or other places of amusement, by teachers and officers of common schools and public institutions of learning, or by cemetery associations. The violation of this section is a mi demeanor, punishable by a fine of not |