Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/18

 6 FEDERAL REPORTER. �zen." Sueh an allegation should therefore appear upon the face of the complaint, and the complaint is insufficient on demurrer for want of it. V. S. V. Taylor, 3 Fed. Eep. 563; Merserole v. Union Paper Col- lar Co. 6 Blatchf. 356. �Thia would be sufi&cient to dispose of the present demurrer ; but as this defect may be cured by amendment, and as the parties have argued at length the second ground of demurrer above stated, it is proper that the views of the court should also be stated on that point. �The only part of section 1 under which plaintifs cause of action can corne is that which concerna the "accommodations, advantages, facil- ities, and privileges oiinns. " The complaint charges that the plaintiff was denied these privileges at a "certain inn, to-wit, a restaurant at No. 9 Chatham street." The defendants contend that this averment is defective in not alleging unequivocally that the place where the accommodations were denied him was in fact an inn where travelers are lodged and fed; and because the statement of the complaint is only equivalent to an allegation that the place was a restaurant, which the plaintiff means to claim is in law an inn. �If such were the proper construction of the language of the com- plaint, the objection would be well taken. The plaintiff cannot recover except upon proof that the place was an inn in the legal sense ; that is, a place provided for the lodging and entertainment of travelers. A coffee-house, or a mere eating-house, is not an inn. To constitute an inn there must be some provision for the essential needs of a traveler upon his journey, viz., lodging as well as food. These two elements of an inn may doubtless be present in very dis- proportionate degrees, as the needs of the situation may require ; but both must in some degres be present to constitute an inn. Story, Bail, § 4T5; Carpenter v. Taylor, 1 Hilt. 193; Wintermute v. Clark, 5 Sandf. 242; People v. Jones, 5e Barb. 316. �It was not necebsary for the plaintiff in his complaint to allege anything more than that the place was an inn, as that is an ancient English word with a fixed and definite legal signification, and must be held to be so used in the statuteof 1875. The term "restaurant" has no definite legal meaning. In Webster's Dictionary it is not even recognized as a word yet Anglieised. As currently understood it doubtless means only, or ohiefly, an eating-house. But not unfre- quently a bar forms a part of it ; sometimes lodgings in addition ; and it is also just as currently understood that in numerous resorts termed restaurants some lodgings for travelers are provided or alleged to be provided, so as to obtain a license for the sale of liquors, which is ��� �