Racial And Religious Discrimination By Innkeepers In U.S.A.
| Author | Paul Hartmann |
| Date | 01 October 1949 |
| Published date | 01 October 1949 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1949.tb00139.x |
RACIAL AND REIJGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
BY
INNKEEPERS
IN
U.S.A.
UNDER
the common law
of
England, an innkeeper is bound to
receive and lodge in his inn all travellers, and to entertain them
at
reasonable prices without any special
or
previous contract, unless he
has some reasonable ground for refusal.' This rule is not based upon
any statutory provision but on custom, and has been given expres-
sion
in
a number of decisions
of
the English c0urts.l The same
rule requires an innkeeper not to oust his guest, once admitted,
without reasonable ground.
An
innkeeper who violates this duty commits
a
crime and can
be punished.' He
is
also liable in damages to the traveller
aggrieved.'
The rule, which is an exception to the general rule that every-
body is at liberty
to
choose his customers, owes its existence to
conditions
in
former times when advance bookings were not custom-
ary
or
possible. Travellers arriving in a place to spend the night
would have been put to a great inconvenience if the innkeeper, who
ran
the only
inn
in
the place, had been at liberty to refuse to admit
the traveller without reasonable ground.
This common law rule also prevails in countries which have
received the
body
of English common law, as the English-speaking
parts
of
Canada and the United States.O
Thus
it
was held in a case arising in the Canadian province of
Ontario in
1887
that a traveller, who has come to an inn as a guest,
1
Halsbur
'8
Lacor
of
England,
2nd ed., vol.
18,
p.
141;
Robina
v.
Grey
[1895]
a
Q.B.
Boi
at
p.
505.
2
See
owes citedin notes
3
and
4.
*
Halsbury;
I.c.,
p.
148;
R.
v.
Luellin
(1701) 12
Mod.Reports
446;
R.
v.
Iwens
(1836)
7
C.
&
P.
913;
R.
v.
Rymer
(1877)
2
Q.B.D.
136.
4
Halsbury,
Lo.,
p.
147;
Fell
v.
Knight
(18411,
8
M:&
W.
269;
Constanline
v.
Imperial Hotela,
Ltd.
[1944]
1
K.B.
693.
This case arose when the proprietors
of
the Imperial Hotel in London refused to accommodate the well-known West
Indian cncketer, Constantine. In awardin nominal damsgee for violation
of
the innkeeper's common law duty, Birkett
f.
held that
it
was no anewer to the
claim that the plaintiff had been offered alternative accommodation
in
another
hotel
of
the defendant company, and further held that no special damages had
to be proved in such an action.
5
Another exception is the duty of the common carrier to receive and convey all
persons applying
for
paseage.
a
The Roman law had no rule similar to the common law rule imposing
a
duty
on an innkeeper to receive guests. In this reaprct the situation
of
an innkeeper
did not differ from that of other businessmen who were at liberty to conclude
a contract with another person
or
to
refrain from entering into a contractual
relation. This liberty of the innkeeper to choose his clients is given in the
Corpus
JUri8
Ciwilis
as a reason for his strict liability with regard to the luggage
brought in by the traveller. (Nam est in ipsorum arbitrio ne
quem
recipiant,
Dig. lib.
4,
tit.
9,
1.1.,
par.
1.)
See
Story
on
Bailments,
9th ed.
(1878),
p.
437.
449
To continue reading
Request your trial