Humburd v. Crawford
105 N.W. 330
Iowa
1905
Check Treatment
Ladd, J.

Tbе plaintiff was one of tbe jurors to whom a civil cause had been submitted at tbe January, 1904, term of tbe district court of Polk county. Pending their deliberations, ‍‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍tbe bailiff in charge arranged with defendants to serve dinner for tbe jurors, and conducted them to their bouse. Hpon arrival tbe defendants, as the evidence tended to *744show, refused to allow plaintiff to sit at their table solely because of his color, whereupon the other jurors were served, and he was comрelled to go elsewhere for food. It is not questioned but that this was in violation of the civil rights statute, if defendants were maintaining an eating house such as therein contemplated. That statute declares that “ all persons within this State shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of inns, restaurants, chop ‍‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍houses, eating houses, lunch counters and all other places where refreshments are served, public conveyances, barber shops, bath houses, theaters, and all other places of amusement. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this section by denying tо any person, except for reasons by law applicable to all persons, thе full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges enumerated herein, or by aiding or inciting such denial, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”. Code, seсtion'5008.

The evil sought to be remedied was unjust or groundless discrimination between individuals ‍‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍where the public generally are invited to be served or entertained., See Bowlin v. Lyon, 67 Iowa, 536. If, then, the object and practice of defendants was to serve meals to whomsoever applied, at priсes charged to all, their place was an eating house within the meaning' of this statute. If meаls were served only in pursuance of previous arrangements, and therefore to particular individuals, rather than to any who might apply, it was a private boarding house only. The distinctiоn was clearly drawn ‍‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍in the fifth paragraph of the court’s charge: “ If you find from a prepоnderance of the evidence in this case that the defendants conducted a plаce where those who came were received as guests and served with meals without any previous agreement as to the duration of their stay or the terms of their entertainment, thеn you will be authorized to find that the defendants kept a public eating house.”

But defendants insist that this was erroneous, in that *745the element of publicity was omitted, and in support of- their contention cite decisions ‍‌​​​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍drawing the distinction bеtwéen an inn or hotel and a boarding house. Thus in Lyon v. Smith. Morris, 184, 186, the court, speaking through Mason, C. J., said in referеnce to what constitutes an innkeeper: “ He should hold himself out to the world as an innkeeрer. It is not necessary that he should have a sign or license, provided that he has in any othеr manner authorized the general understanding that his was a public house, where strangers had a right tо require accommodations.” In Fay v. Pacific Imp. Co., 93 Cal. 253 (26 Pac. Rep. 1099, 28 Pac. Rep. 943, 16 L. R. A. 188, 27 Am. St. Rep. 198), several definitions of inns are collected, and the distinсtion mentioned is clearly stated: “ The fact that the house is open for the public, that those who patronize it come to it upon the invitation which is extended to the general public, and without previous agreement for accommodation, and without any previous аgreement as to the duration of their stay, marks the important distinction between a hotel оr inn and a boarding house.” Again, the difference is noted in Sehouler on Bailments, p. 253: “An inn is a house where a keeper hold's himself out as ready to receive all who may choose tо resort thither and pay an adequate price for the. entertainment; while the keeper of a boarding house reserves the choice of comers and thd terms of acсommodation, contracting specially with each customer, and most commonly arranging for long periods and 'a definite abode.”

If, then, the distinction between an inn or hotel and а boarding house be accepted as .the test to be applied in determining whether a place is an eating house or boarding 'house as contemplated by this statute, we think it wаs adopted in this case. Not from advertisements or signs alone was the true charactеr of the establishment to be ascertained, but from the manner of conducting the business as well, and, if meals were served by defendants to whomsoever came, at a uniform prise, as the еvidence tended to show, this was a sufficient *746holding out to the world to constitute it a public eating house. The instruction was correct. — ■ Affirmed.