Opinion op the Court by
Affirming.
Appellant Thelma Raider applied to the Dixie Inn, at Richmond, for entertainment and paid her board and lodging fоr a week in advance, saying that her home was in Estill county and she had come to Richmond, at the expense оf her mother, to take treatments from a physician. At the eiid of the week she paid in advance for another week, and so on until the. end of-a month, when she went down town, and on returning was informed by the proprietor and his wife, who are appellees in this case, that she no longer had a room at that hotel, and remarked to her that no explanation was due her as to why
“Plaintiff says that she is advised that these defendants (the Dixie Inn) had a legal right to remove her and that she doеs not question that right but that she was removed as a guest for -hire from said Dixie Inn at a time that was improper and in a manner that was imduly disrespectful and insulting and that she was greatly mortified and humiliated, thereby, and suffered indignity becаuse of the wrongful manner in which she was removed from said Dixie Inn as herein set out and complained of A
To the pеtition as amended the .appellees demurred generally. This-the court sustained and on the failure of apрellant to further plead, dismissed,her petition and she appeals. . ■ ..
As a general rule a guest who has been admitted to an inn may afterwards be excluded therefrom- by the innkeeper if the guest refuse to pay his bill, or if he becomes obnoxious to the guests by his own fault, is a person of
It appears, therefore, fully settled that an innkeeper may lawfully refuse to entertain objectionable characters, if to do so is calculated to injure his business or to place himself, business or guests in a hazardous, uncomfortable or dangerous situation. The innkeeper need not aсcept anyone as a guest who is calculated to and will injure his business. State v. Steele,
' It, therefore, appears that the managers of the Dixie Inn had the right to exclude appellant from their hotel upon several grounds without becoming liable therefor, unless the means employed to remove her were unlawful. The petition admits as much by its averments, saying: “She (appellant) is advised that these defendants (appellees) had- a legal right to remоve her and that she did uot question that right.” It being conceded that appellees had the right to remove appellant from the hotel, the only remaining question is, did they do so in a proper manner, or. did they employ unlawful means to exclude her? The averments of the petition show she was not present at the time they took charge of hеr room and placed her belongings in the lobby of the hotel, where they were easily accessible to her; thаt when she came in they quietly told her that they had taken charge of her room but gave no reason for doing so. Wе must believe from the averments of the petition that very little was said, and that the whole proceeding was very quiet and orderly. As they had a right to exclude her from the hotel they were guilty of no wrong in telling her so, even though there werе other persons present in the lobby at the time they gave her such information, which is denied. The averments of the'рetition as amended “that appellees re
The petition as amended did not state a cause of action in favor of appellant against appellees, and the trial court properly sustained a general demurrer thereto.
Judgment affirmed.