WHO ARE NOT INNKEEPERS. Certain public resorts, which might apparently be deemed inns, are not so considered in law; thus, sa loons, public houses, restaurants, and the like, furnish ing only food and not lodging, are not inns. (Mulliner v. Florence, 3 Q. B. Div. 484; 35 Conn. 183.) The im portance of making the distinction lies in the fact that a different degree of care is required of the innkeeper than of those who are not innkeepers.
And boarding-house, or lodging-house keepers are not innkeepers, since they do not hold themselves out to keep travelers, and their liability is not so extensive as innkeepers. If any property of the boarder or lodger is given them to keep, their liability is governed by the ordinary rules applicable to bailees, no special care be ing required of them. (Clark v. Burns, 118 Mass. 275; Pinkerton v. Woodward, supra.) So, sleeping-car companies and steamship com panies, as a rule, are not deemed to be innkeepers, though passengers are lodged and fed by them. The reason sometimes given for their not being held to the strict liability of an innkeeper is, that the liability of innkeepers was developed in earlier times, when the danger from lawlessness was great, and this was a nec essary provision to secure the safety and protection of travelers. Now that the reason of the rule of stricter liability is practically at an end, it is claimed that the severity of the rule should be modified. Again, it is urged in favor of sleeping car companies that the com pany does not have full control of its cars, they being in charge of the conductor of the railway company who may enter to take tickets, etc., hence their business is to be distinguished from that of an innkeeper.