(c) When the carrier, at the time of transportation, has an interest, direct or indirect, in a legal or equitable sense, in the article or commodity, not including, therefore, articles or commodities manufactured, mined, produced, or owned, etc., by a bona fide corporation in which the railroad company is a stockholder.

The question then arises whether, as thus construed, the statute was inherently within the power of Congress to enact as a regulation of commerce. That it was, we think is apparent; and if reference to authority to so demonstrate is necessary, it is afforded by a consideration of the ruling in the New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. Case, to which we have previously referred. We do not say this upon the assumption that, by the grant of power to regulate commerce, the authority of the government of the United States has been unduly limited, on the one hand, and inordinately extended, on the other, nor do we rest it upon the hypothesis that the power conferred embraces the right to absolutely prohibit the movement between the states of lawful commodities, or to destroy the governmental power of the states as to subjects within their jurisdiction, however remotely and indirectly the exercise of such powers may touch interstate commerce. On the contrary, putting these considerations entirely out of mind, the conclusion just previously stated rests upon what we deem to be the obvious result of the statute as we have interpreted it; that it merely and unequivocally is confined to a regulation which Congress had the power to adopt and to which all pre-existing rights of the railroad companies were subordinated. Armor Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. ed. 681, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428.1

1 Compare New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 200 U. S. 361.-ED.

CHAPTER V.

PROVISION OF ADEQUATE FACILITIES.

All Cases

FELL v. KNIGHT.

EXCHEQUER, 1841.

[8 M. & W. 269.]

[CASE. The declaration stated that the defendant did keep a certain common inn for the reception of travellers, that the defendant had sufficient room and accommodation for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay therefor; nevertheless that the defendant not regarding his duty as such innkeeper, denied the plaintiff accommodation, etc.

Plea.. That the defendant offered to the plaintiff to allow him to sleep in any one of certain bedrooms; but the plaintiff refused to sleep in any of said bedrooms, but requested that candles might be brought him in order that he might sit up all night in another upstairs room in said inn, which the defendant then reasonably refused.]

Lord ABINGER, C. B. I am of opinion that the plea is sufficient. I do not think a landlord is bound to provide for his guest the precise room the latter may select. Where the guest expresses a desire of sitting up all night, is the landlord bound to supply him with candle-light in a bedroom, provided he offers him another proper room for the purpose? The plea shows, that the landlord did everything that was reasonable. The short question is, is a landlord bound to comply with the caprice of his guests, or is he justified in saying, You shall not stay in a room in this way, and under these circumstances? I think he is not bound to do so. All that the law requires of him is, to find for his guests reasonable and proper accommodation; if he does that, he does all that is requisite. am also inclined to think, notwithstanding the

case which has been cited of Rex v. Jones, that the declaration is bad for want of an allegation of a tender of the amount to which the innkeeper would be reasonably entitled for the entertainment furnished to his guest; it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to allege that he was ready to pay; he should state further that he was willing and offered to pay. There may be cases where a tender may be dispensed with; as, for instance, where a man shuts up his doors or windows, so that no tender can be made; but I rather think those facts ought to be stated in the indictment or declaration; and I have, therefore, some doubt as to the complete correctness of the judgment of my Brother Coleridge, in the case cited: but it is not necessary to decide that point in the present case. This rule must be discharged. ALDERSON, B., and ROLFE, B., concurred.

Rule discharged.

DOYLE v. WALKER.

QUEEN'S BENCH, UPPER CANADA, 1867.

[29 Upp. Can. Q. B. 502.]

DRAPER, C. J., delivered the judgment of the Court. The plaintiff neither asserts nor proves any special contract. He rests his case upon what he assumes to be his right resulting from his being a guest in an inn, and the defendant being the innkeeper. He assumes that having been let into possession of a room, he has acquired such an exclusive right of possession as against his landlord, so long as he continues to occupy it, that the latter is liable as a trespasser for entering and removing his trunks out of it. We do not so understand the law. The contention appears to us to be inconsistent with the well settled duties, liabilities, and rights of the innkeeper. Whatever may be the traveller's rights to be received as a guest and to be reasonably entertained and accommodated, the landlord has, in our opinion, the sole right to select the apartment for the guest, and, if he finds it expedient, to change the apartment and assign the guest another, without becoming a trespasser in making the change. If, having the necessary convenience, he refuses to afford reasonable accommodation he is liable to an action, but not of trespass. There is no implied contract that a guest to whom a particular apartment has been assigned shall retain that particular apartment so long as he chooses to pay for it. We think the contention on the plaintiff's part involves a confusion between the character and position of an innkeeper and a lodging housekeeper.

It appears to us further, that although the innkeeper is bound to receive, the guest must not only be ready and willing, and before he can insist as of right to be received that he must offer, to pay whatever is the reasonable charge; and that a guest who has been received loses the right to be entertained if he neglects or refuses to pay upon reasonable demand. The plaintiff's bill accrued due de die in diem, and had been in arrear though frequently demanded. On both points, we think, upon the evidence the plaintiff failed, and that there should be a new trial without costs.

BROWNE v. BRANDT.

KING'S BENCH DIVISION, ENGLAND, 1902.

[1902, 1 K. B. 696.1]

LORD ALVERSTONE, C. J. The plaintiff in this case contends that the defendant has broken his common law duty as an innkeeper to provide accommodation for travellers, and that this action can be maintained if the defendant had a room at the inn in which the plaintiff could have passed the night. The county court judge has found that the defendant's house was full as regarded proper sleeping accommodation; that there was no empty bedroom; that there were two rooms available for the accommodation of the plaintiff, and that that accommodation was refused. I do not think the question whether the plaintiff demanded to take the one sitting-room was submitted to the county court judge, but I do not wish to decide this case on narrow grounds; we must assume that there was some place in the house where the defendant might have permitted the plaintiff to stay for the night.__I think that we should be straining the common law liability of an innkeeper if we were to hold that the plaintiff has a good cause of action. The true view is, in my opinion, that an innkeeper may not pick and choose his guests; he must give the accommodation he has to persons who come to the inn as travellers for rest and refreshment. I cannot think that the authorities to which we have been referred shew that where an innkeeper provides a certain number of bedrooms and sittingrooms for the accommodation of guests he is under a legal obligation to receive and shelter as many people as can be put into the rooms without overcrowding. I think a person who comes to the inn has no legal right to demand to pass the night in a public sitting-room if the bedrooms are all full, and I think that the landlord has no obligation to receive him. The landlord must act reasonably; he must not captiously or unreasonably refuse to receive persons when he has proper accommodation for them. Here the county court judge has found, in effect, that the defendant did act reasonably. For these reasons I am of opinion that the appeal must fail.

1 Only the opinion of Lord Alverstone, C. J., is printed. The other justices concurred. ED.

GARDNER v. PROVIDENCE TELEPHONE CO.

SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, 1901.

[50 Atl. Rep. 1014.]

PER CURIAM. The evidence shows, as stated by the complainant, that the defendant refuses to furnish a long-distance extension set in connection with a grounded telephone circuit. The evidence does not convince a majority of the court that such a combination can be made generally without impairment of the service. The uniform practice of

the company is against this contention. The company offers to annex to the complainant's grounded circuit, for a reasonable price, such an extension set as is appropriate for the circuit, and which it contends will give satisfactory service. This is all that the complainant can demand. He is in default in not requesting the company to provide what it says it is willing to give him, and in insisting on the exact form of apparatus which he has installed. It is for the company, not for the subscriber, to determine the type of apparatus it shall use, and there is no evidence that the type it offers is inadequate. These points were fully considered by the court upon the former hearing, as a careful examination of the opinion will show. It may further be observed that in this case there is no evidence that the defendant's charge for a metallic circuit combined with a long-distance set is exorbitant. The well-known superiority of a metallic circuit to a grounded one in all essential features, and the greater cost of construction, make it reasonable to charge more for the use of the metallic circuit than for the other. The question of price is not strictly before the court, for the complainant does not desire this kind of service, and the defendant will not tolerate the combination which the complainant has made at any price. The motion for re-argument is denied.