sible for all damages, if guilty of slight negligence. If he uses the property for any other purpose than that for which it was borrowed, he is liable for all accidents which happen to it, and for the hire thereof. In the fourth and fifth classes of bailment the benefit is mutual. The bailee is required to use ordinary diligence only in these cases, except the bailment of goods for transportation, in which case he is an insurer, as well as the bailee. When the bailor lets his horse and carriage to the bailee for a journey, the bailee is responsible for gross negligence. If the bailor deposit his goods with the bailee on storage, the bailee is required to exercise ordinary care and diligence in the protection and preservation of the property, and is responsible for gross negligence.

6. If the bailor leave cloth with the bailee to be made into clothes, or if logs be left with the bailee to be sawed into boards, the bailee is liable for gross negligence. In these cases there is an implied contract that the work shall be done in a workmanlike manner. The bailee of goods received for transportation is liable for all losses, except the losses caused-1. By inevitable accident; 2. By public enemies; 3. By the bailor himself.

7. All persons who are competent to make other contracts may become parties to the contract of bailment. If goods be delivered to an infant bailee, although there is no contract of bailment, as in the case of adults, yet if he injure the property by some act of fraud or violence he is responsible. If a person be of unsound mind, this disability must be established by evidence. If a person find

property for another purpose than that for which it was borrowed? In the fourth and fifth classes of bailment, where is the benefit? What degree of care and diligence is the bailee required to use? If he be a bailee for transportation? When the bailor lets his horse to the bailee for a journey, for what is the bailee responsible? If the bailor deposit his goods with the bailee on storage?

6. If the bailor leave cloth with the bailee, for what is the bailee responsible? In this case, what implied contract is there? For what is the bailee of goods received for transportation liable?

7. Who are competent to make the contract of bailment? If goods be delivered to an infant, and the infant injures the property by some act

an article, and take it into his possession, he becomes a bailee, so as to render himself responsible for gross negligence.

8. In every contract there must be a good consideration. The consideration must be either a benefit to the party promising, or some trouble or prejudice to the party to whom the promise is made. When the bailor deposits with or intrusts his property in the hands of the bailee, to be held or carried without reward, the law raises the presumption of a sufficient consideration for his faithful discharge of the trust. When money is deposited in the bank in the ordinary course of business, it does not create a contract of bailment.

9. When the question is submitted to the jury, whether the bailee has used ordinary care and diligence in the preservation of the property, they would require stronger proof where the bailor pays for the storage, than where the bailee has received and taken care of the goods without reward. The fact that the bailee receives a reward binds him to a diligence beyond that of a bailee without reward. The bailee who is a borrower, and receives the use of a chattel without rendering any compensation for it; is bound to use the highest possible degree of care and diligence.

10. The rule that ordinary diligence in the care and protection of the property intrusted to the bailee is required in all cases, is fixed and immutable, but the subject mat

of fraud or violence? If a person be of unsound mind? If a person find an article?

8. What must exist in every contract? What must the consideration be? When the bailment comes within the first and second classes, what is the consideration? When money is deposited in a bank for safe-keeping, does this create a contract of bailment?

9. When the question is submitted to the jury, whether the bailee has used ordinary care and diligence in the preservation of property, what degree of proof will they require in case of storage, as compared with the receipt of goods without reward? What effect does receiving the reward have? What effect does receiving property for use without pay have?

10. Is ordinary diligence required in all cases of bailment, on the part of the bailee? Is the subject-matter upon which the rule acts, the same

ter upon which it acts, changes with the execution of each contract. What would be ordinary diligence in taking care of iron, would not be sufficient in the custody and preservation of gold. The jury must inquire into the nature of the property, and the extent of care ordinarily exercised by persons of common prudence, and capable of governing a family, in the preservation of the like kind. of property.

11. When the bailor delivers horses and cattle to the bailee for pasturage for a compensation, the bailee is not responsible if they are stolen from the pasture. But if the bailee leave the bars or gates of the pasture open, and in consequence of his neglect they stray and are stolen, he is liable to the bailor for the loss.

CHAPTER LXXI.

RESPONSIBILITY OF BAILEE.

1. By the rules of the common law, every man is responsible for injuries occasioned by his own personal negligence, and for those occasioned by the negligence of those whom the law denominates his servants, while engaged in the business for which he employed them. When the owner of a carriage hires of a stable-keeper a pair of horses, and the owner of the horses provides a driver, through whose negligent driving an injury is done to a third person, it is held that the owner of the carriage is not liable for the injury, because the driver is not his

in all cases? How illustrated by the care of iron and gold? Into what must the jury inquire?

11. When the bailor delivers horses or cattle to the bailee for pastur age for a compensation, who is responsible if the cattle are stolen?

1. For what injuries is every man responsible, by the rules of the common law? If the owner of a carriage hire of a stable-keeper, a pair of horses to draw his carriage, and the stable-keeper furnish a driver, through whose negligent driving an injury is done to a third party, who

servant. The owner of the horses, who employs and sends his servant to drive them, is liable for all injuries occurring through his neglect. The driver is his servant, though not under his immediate superintendence. It is not necessary that the servant be employed by the bailee in person, or that he should be under the master's immediate and personal superintendence, in order to render him liable for injuries caused by his servant's neglect.

2. The bailee is held liable for the acts of his servants, on the ground that the servant is supposed to act under the direction of his employer. The employer is not liable to a servant for an injury sustained through the negligence of a fellow-servant engaged in the same employment. The bailee is not liable for the wilful acts of his servant, done without his direction or consent, and in his absence. But he is liable for the negligence of his servant acting in his employ. In order to charge the master, it must be shown that the relation of master and servant existed in that particular affair. A careless act of the servant, is the act of the master. The master is answerable for the servant's negligence and want of skill, but he is not answerable for his wilful injuries.

3. The bailee of a chattel for hire must use ordinary diligence in taking care of it. If a hired horse be taken ill, and the bailee call in a farrier, he is not answerable for any mistake which the farrier may commit in the treatment of the horse; but if the bailee or his servant attempt to prescribe for the horse, and from want of skill gives him medicine which causes his death, though he act

is responsible for such injury? Why? Is it necessary that the servant be under the immediate superintendence of the master?

2. On what ground is the bailee held liable for the acts of his servants? Is the employer liable to a servant for an injury sustained through the negligence of a fellow-servant engaged in the same employment? For what acts of the servant is the bailee not liable? In order to charge 'the master, what must be shown? Whose is the careless act of the servant? For what acts is the master answerable, and for what not answerable?

3. In what must the bailee for hire use ordinary diligence? If a hired horse be taken ill, and the bailee call in a farrier? If the bailee or his

in good faith, he will be guilty of gross negligence, and liable to pay for the horse.

4. When an action is brought against the bailee for an injury sustained by the bailee's negligence, the burden of proof is upon the bailor, to show that the injury occurred through the bailee's neglect. But when the bailee returns the hired property in a damaged condition, and refuses or fails, at the time or subsequently, to give any account of the manner the injury occurred, negligence will be presumed on his part, and the burden of proof will be upon him to show a want of negligence. The degree of care required by law varies according to the nature of the property hired, and the circumstances in which it is placed; but it is measured always by that diligence which, under the circumstances, a man of ordinary prudence and discretion would exercise in reference to the same kind of property if it were his own.

5. The burden of proof lies upon the party alleging a fact, which he must establish by evidence on the trial of an action. If the bailor allege that the injury or loss of his property occurred through the negligence of the bailee for hire, he is bound to prove this fact by evidence. It is not enough for him to prove a loss, but he must show that it was caused by the negligence of the bailee. The bailee is presumed to exercise due care and diligence until the contrary be proved, unless he has neglected or refused to give an account of the injury or loss of the property.

servant attempt to prescribe for the horse, and, for want of skill, give him medicine which causes his death?

4. When an action is brought against the bailee for an injury caused by the bailee's negligence, upon whom is the burden of proof? If the bailee returned the hired property in a damaged condition, and refused or failed to give any account of the manner the injury occurred? How does the degree of care required by law vary? By what is it always measured?

5. Upon whom does the burden of proof lie? If the bailor allege that the injury or loss of his property occurred through the negligence of the bailee for hire? What is not enough for him to prove? What is the bailee presumed to have done, until the contrary be proved? If he has refused or neglected to give any information of the cause of the loss or injury?