
    Carl C. Bullock v. Ada Adair.
    1. Inn Keepers—A European Hotel May be an Inn.—A European hotel with rooms and cafe attached, and claiming the benefit of the act for the protection of inn keepers, may be an inn, and as such be liable for loss of goods by its guests.
    Assumpsit, by a guest, for loss of goods. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Henry V. Freeman, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 3, 1896.
    Keene H. Addington, attorney for appellant.
    We hold it as fundamental that a “ common inn,” even though ordinarily such, may likewise sustain toward different characters; that at one and the same time it may be inn, boarding-house and lodging house; in other words, that in determining the true character of any such establishment, the question is one of fact to be decided upon a consideration of the circumstances surrounding, and the contract between the parties to the contention. In the case of Seward v. Seymour, Anthon’s Law Student, 53, cited in Cromwell v. Stephens, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 23, it is said:
    “The Atlantic hotel has a double character. It is a boarding-house and also an inn.”
    To like effect will be found Hall v. Pike, 100 Mass. 497.
    The Supreme Court of this State in the case of Pullman Palace Car Company v. Smith, 73 Ill. 363, has committed itself to the following definition of an inn: “ It must be a house kept open publicly for the lodging and entertainment of travelers in general, for a reasonable consideration. If a person lets lodgings only, and upon a previous contract ■with every person who comes, and does not afford entertainment for the public at large, indiscriminately, it is not a common inn.” 2 Kent’s Com., 495; Curtis v. Murphy, 63 Wis. 6.
    Whether appellee comes within the legal definition of a guest is a question of fact, to be decided upon all the evidence. In the absence of a specific agreement, its correct decision requires a consideration of the situation of the parties and all the circumstances. The duration of the plaintiff’s stay, the price paid, the amount of accommodation afforded, the transient or permanent character of the plaintiff’s residence and occupation, are all to be regarded in settling the question. Hall v. Pike, 100 Mass. 497.
    The test questions are, was he a traveler and a wayfarer, and was he received and entertained as such by the keeper of the inn. Norcross v. Norcross, 53 Me. 169.
    The prominent idea in the definitions of the term “ guest ” is that a guest must be a traveler, wayfarer or transient comer to an inn for lodging and entertainment. Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 13.
    A lodger when he sojourns at an inn and takes his room for a specified time, and pays for his lodging on a special agreement, as by the month or week, is a boarder. Neal v. Wilcox, 4 Jones’ Law (N. C.) 148.
    A guest, as distinguished from a boarder, is bound for no stipulated time. He stops at the inn for as short or as long a time as he pleases, paying, while he remains, the customary charge. But if he and the' innkeeper enter into a special agreement for any fixed period at a stipulated price, he ceases to be a guest and becomes a boarder. In modern times, and especially in cities, the practice has become very general of furnishing accommodation by the week or by the month, at a fixed rate, or as the parties may agree, and the persons who furnish accommodation in this ivay are distinguished as keepers of boarding houses. Stewart v. McCready, 24 Howe Pr. Rep. 62.
    William E. Dever, attorney for appellee,
    contended that where a person, by the means usually employed in that business, holds himself out to the world as an innkeeper, he can not, in a suit to enforce his liability as such innkeeper, be heard to say that his professions are false, and that he is not, in fact, an innkeeper. Schouler on Bailments (2d Ed.), Sec. 276, Par. 2; Krohn v. Sweeney, 2 Daly (N. Y.) 271; Pinkerton v. Woodward, 33 Cal. 257; 91 Am. Dec. 657.
    
      The innkeeper is prima fade liable for the loss of goods in his charge, but may discharge himself by showing that the goods were lost without any fault whatever on his part. Metcalf v. Hess, 14 Ill. 129; Johnson v. Richardson, 17 Ill. 304.
    The distinction between a guest and boarder (or lodger) is based mainly upon the fact that boarders (or lodgers) contract for a definite stay at specified prices. Amer. and Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 11, 18; Shoecroft v. Bailey, 25 Iowa 553, 555; 1 Parsons on Contracts, 628; Story on Bailments, 477.
   Mr. Presiding Justice Gary

deliveeed the opinion of the Coubt.

The appellee is by occupation a concert singer.

The appellant is the proprietor of Hotel Carlyle, 228 to 230 North Clark street, Chicago. From August 28 to September 6, 1894, she taught piano lessons to the wife of the manager—not the proprietor—of the hotel, and during that period lodged and ate in the hotel, then went south for five weeks. She returned and lodged, not ate, in the hotel, from October 10th to October 30th, and then went again. December 24th returned again, and lodged only in the house until April 1, 1895.

On the night of March 6, 1895, her cloak was stolen. She sued the appellant and recovered $60. The only question in the case is, ivas she a guest at an inn ?

She rented a room for her own occupation at $1.50 per week, and kept it more than three months. But she was by occupation transient, not permanent. In all respects affecting the question of guest or lodger, her case is more satisfactory that she retained the former character than was that of Mrs. Gen. Hancock, in Hancock v. Rand, 94 N. Y. 1. Gen. Hancock had engaged the lodgings in the Hotel St. Cloud for a fixed term, subject to contingencies.

The appellee did not engage for any term.

Cards of the Hotel Carlyle in the record, not abstracted, and therefore not to be looked at if they favored the appellant, show that it was a European hotel of one hundred rooms, with first-class Vienna cafe attached, and by “ rules and regulations ” claiming the' benefit of “ an act for the protection of innkeepers,” approved February 21, 1861. A European hotel may be an inn.

As a hotel it might at the same time have guests of an inn, and inmates who were not guests, within its walls. A great mass of authority is collected under the title “ inns and inn keepers,” Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, Vol. 11, to which we refer without collating.

The judgment is affirmed.

Mb. Justice Shepabd.

I do not think the relationship of inn keeper and guest existed between the parties, under the proved facts and circumstances. P. P. Car Co. v. Smith, 73 Ill. 360.  