We think counsel is correct in his contention that under the circumstances the defendant was only liable as a bailee for want of ordinary care. The rule seems to be quite well settled that, where property is brought to a hotel for the purpose of sale or show, such as the goods of commercial travelers, the law does not hold an innkeeper to his strict liability, but only to the exercise of ordinary care and answerable for negligence. Neal v. Wilcox, 49 N.C. 146, 67 Am. Dec. 266; Scheffer v. Corson, 5 S.D. 233, 58 N.W. 555; Jalie v. Cardinal, 35 Wis. 118; Myers v. Cottrill, 5 Biss. 465, Fed. Cas. No. 9,985; Farnsworth v. Packwood, 1 Stark. 249; Fisher et al. v. Kelsey et al., 121 U.S. 383, 7 Sup. Ct. 929, 30 L.Ed. 930. It is admitted by counsel that this loss occurred in Indian Territory, prior to statehood, and that the common law as to innkeepers was in force therein.

The proprietor is held to be an insurer to the extent that he must make good to the guest all loss or damage arising from any cause except the act of God or the public enemy, or the fault of the guest himself or his agents or servants. Quinton v. Courtney. 2 N. c., 40; Neal v. Wilcox, 49 N.C. 146. This exacting requirement of the common law, established in a ruder time, from reasons of public policy, in many instances and under modern conditions may operate with great harshness, and the matter has been very generally made the subject of legislation by which the landlord's obligations have been limited, both in kind and amount. It is so with us. Revisal, ch. 42, secs. 1909 et seq. The statute, however (section 1913), itself provides as follows: "Every innkeeper shall keep posted in every room of his house occupied by guests, and in the office, a printed copy of this chapter and of all regulations relating to the conduct of guests.

Judgment reversed. Cited: March v. Wilson, 44 N.C. 152; Pool v. Hunter, 49 N.C. 146; Hughes v. Newsom, 86 N.C. 426; Comrs. v. McRae, 89 N.C. 95.