case newton against trigg Michaelmas term James roll the statute of bankrupt  do not extend to innkeeper S c show S c lev S c Carth S c comb S c salk cro  car vent skin salk Mod Mod Mod ld ray stram stram Peer wms Peer wms Com dig  will burr atk Bl Com cook b l trespass for break and enter of his close tread  down of his grass c and take away of his good upon not guilty plead a special  verdict be find that the plaintiff be a innkeeper and a freeman of the city of  London that be buy oat hay c which he sell in his inn by which he get his live  that be with other build a ship and he have a share therein and a stock of  fifty pound to trade withal that he be indebt to several person that he depart  from his house and abscond from his creditor that thereupon a commission of  bankruptcy be take out against he at the petition of the creditor that the  plaintiff be indebt to trigg that the commissioner find he to be a bankrupt  and by indenture bear date the that day of June make a bargain and sale of the  good to trigg who do take and carry they away c the question be whether upon  the whole matter the plaintiff be a bankrupt or not Thompson sergeant argue  that he be not within any of the statute of bankruptcy for a innkeeper be  under many obligation and circumstance different from all other tradesman he  be to take care of the good of traveller and if he set a unreasonable price  upon his good it be ail offence which the justice of peace and steward in  their leet have power to hear and determine second he do not buy and sell by  way of contract for most of his gain arise by the entertain and lodging of his  guest by the attendance of his servant by the furniture of his room and not by  utter of commodity as in other trade and therefore by the opinion of three  judge in the case of crisp v Prat cro car a it be hold that a innholder do not  get his live by buy and sell for though be buy provision he do not sell it by  way of contract but utter it at what gain be think reasonable which his guest  may refuse to give and modern Berkley justice in the argue of that case agree  that he who get his live by buy only and not both by buy and sell be not  within the statute but the jury have find that he get a livelihood by both and  by use the trade of a innholder therefore he be a bankrupt but the other three  judge be of a contrary opinion because a innkeeper can proper be say to sell  his good as to his have a share in a ship it be no more than a stock to trade  which may go to a infant or to a executor after his decease and if either of  these person shall trade with it they can be make bankrupt because it be in  autre law see the case ex part nut Atkins that the executor of a trader who  only dispose of his testator stock or buy material to fine the wine of the  testator be not a trader within the statute of bankrupt a e contra it be argue  that he who keep ail inn be a tradesman and may be proper say to get his live  by buy and sell the good of a traveller be not distrainable for the rend of a  innkeeper the reason be because he be more immediate concern as a tradesman  for the benefit of commerce it be the opinion of my Lord roll roll Abr b that  a innkeeper be a tradesman therefore any man may build a new inn for it be no  franchise but a particular trade to keep a inn and as a tradesman be sell his  good to his guest by way of contract for he be not bind to provide bay and oat  for the horse of his guest without be pay in hand modern er p as soon as the  horse come into the stable for the law do not oblige he to trust for the  payment the yearbook Henry pl and c the case of crisp v Prat as report by  croak justice seem to be against this opinion but it be misreport for Jones  justice who mention the same case say that it be find that the innkeeper get  his live by buy and sell it be the opinion of two judge that he be within the  statute but the other two judge as to this point be of a contrary opinion for  they hold that a innkeeper can be no more a bankrupt than a farmer who often  buy and sell cattle and other good Jones march see salk cro car Mayo v archer  stram d though a man be of a particular trade yet if it do not appear that he  get his livelihood by buy and sell it be not actionable to call such a person  bankrupt style side e now certain if the plaintiff have declare that he be a  innkeeper and get his live after that manner and that the defendant to  scandalize he say he be a bankrupt the action will lie as well as for a dyer  farmer carpenter or such like trade of manual occupation modern most of the  innkeeper be farmer and if it have be so find in this case it will not have be  deny but that he have be within the statute of bankrupt afterward in Trinity  term the three of William and mary judgement be give for the plaintiff for  take the whole matter as find by this verdict it be not sufficient to make he  a bankrupt that he have a ship which he let to fraught this be not much insist  on at the bar to make he a bankrupt for it be no more than for a man to have a  share in a barge hackneycoach or wagon all which be let for hire beside in  this case it be find that the plaintiff be but a partner with another and as  to the fifty pound which he have in this trade that be not sufficient to make  he a bankrupt for be must be actual a trader at the time that the debt be  contract which be not find so it must be to make the word bankrupt actionable  for it must be find that he be a trader at the time of the word speak cro car  side Mod show ld ray dougl cook b l a all the question of difficulty be that  the plaintiff be a innkeeper and that he buy necessary and utter they in his  house but this will not make he a bankrupt because inn be of necessity and  under the inspection of the public and he can refuse to lodge travel person  and it be chief upon this account that he have several privilege which other  trader have not as to detain a horse till he be pay for keep of it c roll Rep  Hutton roll Abr Dalton b they be under the power of the justice of the peace  in the place where they be situate for if a inn be erect in a inconvenient  place it be a nuisance and may be suppress by indictment it be the same with a  alehouse and therefore several statute the James c the James c and the I car c  c which be make to prevent tipple and which appoint at what price ale shall be  sell have be adjudge to extend to innkeeper where a man buy and sell under a  restraint and particular limitation though it be for his livelihood yet he be  not within the statute innkeeper do not deal upon contract as other trader do  for a judge of assize may set a price upon their good and if they shall set a  price themselves if it be unreasonable they may be indict for extortion what  they buy be to a particular intent for it be to spend in their house and  though they get their live by it it be not ad much for the great part of their  gain arise by lodging attendance dress of meal and other necessary for their  guest modern ever since the statute of Elizabeth c all the subsequent act  relate to bankrupt have be pen alike except the James c which be a little  large and take in a scrivener see the case ex part Burchal atk d and a  innkeeper but no law now in be extend to he he be not take notice of as a  trader within any of the statute of bankruptcy he be only common a lodger a  person or trader who buy and sell for hospitality by receive traveller he  become Chargeable to the public to protect they and their good cayles case  Counterfeit e a shoemaker modern er p tanner and baker be trade within the  statute but the difference between those trade and a innkeeper be plain  because they use the manufacture and thereby increase the value as leather be  make more useful and of more value by make of it into shoe ante cro car Hutton  cro Elizabeth skin cro James Bac Abr burr Espinasse dig f a farmer be not  within the statute and yet they all buy and sell for it be necessary to their  occupation the Geo c declare that farmer grazier and drover be not object of  the bankrupt law and it have be decide that if a person buy cattle at a fair  and keep they three or four day on his land and then drive they to another  fair and sell they he be a drover within the statute mill v Hugh bull n p but  although a farmer as such be not within the statute yet if he buy great  quantity of such thing as be the produce of his farm and sell they again this  will make he a trader within the statute see Mayo v archer stram Bartholomew v  Sherwood term Rep post v Turton will so if he take the soil of the waste and  make brick of it ex part Harrison brown c c and a strong if he rend a brick  ground only independent of his farm Parker v well brown c c notorious facts a  this point be settle in the case of crisp v Prat but the occasion of the doubt  afterward be by the publish of justice Jones report who doubt upon the  particular find of the jury and so the court come to be divide there be no  material difference between a innkeeper and the master of a boardingschool who  buy and dress provision for young scholar and obtain credit by his way of live  ld ray see dally v smith that a butcher may be a bankrupt burr see also ex  part Meyot I atk cook bankrupt law burr will b but it be never yet think that  he be within any of those statutesSo also it have be hold that a victualler  who sell liquor only in his own house or out of it in small quantity or by the  pot or mug and rather to oblige his customer than as a mean of live be not a  trader within the bankrupt law sanderson v bowl burr but if either a  victualler or a innkeeper deal in liquor as in a distinct business however  small the quantity sell may be they may be bankrupt Patman v Vaughan I term  Rep Buscal v Hogg will c