For this statement I might cite authorities beginning with the infancy of the law, and not ending even with a late decision of the Superior Court of New York, where an inn is defined to be “a public house of entertainment for all who choose to visit it,”[188]—which differs very little from the descriptive words of Holinshed.
The summary of our great jurist, Judge Story, shows the law:—
“An innkeeper is bound to take in all travellers and wayfaring persons, and to entertain them, if he can accommodate them, for a reasonable compensation.… If an innkeeper improperly refuses to receive or provide for a guest, he is liable to be indicted therefor.”[189]
Chancellor Kent states the rule briefly, but with fulness and precision:—
“An innkeeper cannot lawfully refuse to receive guests to the extent of his reasonable accommodations; nor can he impose unreasonable terms upon them.”[190]
This great authority says again, quoting a decided case:—
“Innkeepers are liable to an action if they refuse to receive a guest without just cause. The innkeeper is even indictable for the refusal, if he has room in his house and the guest behaves properly.”[191]
And Professor Parsons, in his work on Contracts, so familiar to lawyers and students, says:—
“He cannot so refuse, unless his house is full and he is actually unable to receive him. And if on false pretences he refuses, he is liable to an action.”[192]