Deposit is a bailment for no particular purpose, without,. reward to the bailee. Such a case would arise where the owner of goods leaves them, merely for his own convenience, with another person, there being no particular agreement bete ten them either as to safe custody, safe re-delivery, or a reward. Deposits on such lines as these are of everyday occurrence, as well in the private affairs of life as in business. The bailee would not be answer able if, for example, the goods were stolen without his fault ; nor would even an ordinary neglect make him liable, for if he keeps the goods with ordinary care, he has fulfilled the trust imposed upon him. The bailee is therefore not responsible for the thefts, or other misdeeds, of wrongdoers, which he is not, nor cannot be, sufficiently armed against. Nor would he be responsible for the consequences of an accident, e.g. fire, over which he could have no control. A gentleman one r_.vening went into a well-known West End restaur ant for the purpose of dining, his overcoat being there removed by a waiter, and without any directions hung upon a peg. The overcoat disappeared, and its owner was able to recover its value from the restaurant-keeper on the ground that the custody of the overcoat having been spontaneously solicited and accepted, its unexplained disappearance alone was sufficient evidence of a lack of proper care. On the other hand, an author sent unsolicited a manuscript play to a celebrated theatrical manager. The latter lost it, but was held not to be responsible for mere carelessness apart from wilful negli gence. The author had therefore to bear the loss himself.
But the degree of care must be regulated by the nature of the property bailed. Thus, if A. sends his horse to B., a mere gratuitous bailee, who turns the horse after dark into a dangerous pasture, to which it was unaccustomed, though the place might be perfectly safe to his own cattle, yet dangerous to the horse, B. would be liable to A. for any injury resulting to the animal from such incautious conduct. The bailee may not sell or pawn the property bailed, so as to affect the rights and interests of the bailor. Nor should he use it, unless it is of such a nature as would require use for its preservation. Thus the bailee should use a horse so as at least to give it proper exercise. If property is taken away or injured by a third party the bailee may main tain an action against him, or prosecute him in the same way as the absolute owner might. If property belongs to several joint-owners who concurrently deposit it with the bailee on their joint account, the bailee should not give it up except with the consent of all parties. But it would only be the parties to the deposit whose consent would be required ; not that of any others of whose relation to the property the bailee became aware only after he had received the deposit.
Mandate is a case of bailment where the property is deposited for a particular purpose, but without reward. It differs from mere deposit, in that the latter imposes an obligation upon the bailee of custody only; whilst the class of bailment we are now considering imposes upon the bailee the additional obligation of doing something. To the lawyer the word bailment, and especially the class of mandate, at once suggests the case of Cogge v. Bernard. In this case Bernard had assumed without pay to safely remove several casks of brandy from one cellar, and lay them down safely in another, but he unfortunately managed the business so negligently that one of the casks was staved. Coggs obtained a verdict for damages, but on appeal it
was urged that Bernard was not liable since there was no akreement to recompense him for his pains, and that moreover it was not within his ordinary business to do such work. But Bernard was unable to get the Court to relieve him of his liability on those grounds ; he obtained instead the doubtful honour of being party to a leading case, and a famous judgment by Lord Holt ; and for two hundred years he has held a place in the memory of lawyers wherever the common law of England has taken root. Such a bailee is considered to have engaged himself to use a degree of diligence and attention adequate to the performance of his undertaking, and he is obliged to exert himself bond fide to the utmost of his usual ability in proportion to the necessities of the business in hand. And he must neither do anything, however minute, by which the bailor may sustain damage ; nor omit any thing, however inconsiderable, which the nature of the act requires to be done. Where a person undertakes, without reward, to perform a particular service, and whose situation is not such as implies skill or knowledge in the particular transaction, he is not responsible for loss when he has acted bond fide, and exercised the same care which he takes of his own affairs. If a medical practitioner attend a patient out of charity and without reward, he will be as much liable for the result of any negligent treatment as if the patient had been a paying one. Should a person improperly meddle with goods casually left in his possession, he may incur an additional degree of responsibility on account of such interference.
For use arises where the property is bailed to be used by the bailee without reward, as where a man lends his guest an umbrella to go through the rain with. In such case the borrower is responsible for any loss or damage occasioned by his own neglect ; also if he uses the property in a manner not warranted by the terms of the loan ; or if, facilitated by some neglect on his part, there is a robbery of the property. The bailor or lender is under an obligation to disclose to the bailee any defects in things bailed of which he is aware. Accordingly, if the bailor lent a gun which he knew would be used and which he also knew would probably burst, he would be liable in case of any injury resulting to the bailee in consequence of the gun bursting. loan is for a use in which the lender has a common interest with the borrower, the bailee can be responsible for no more than ordinary neglect. For example, if A. and B. invite some friends common to both to an entertainment, prepared at their joint expense, for which purpose B. lends a service of plate to his companion, who undertakes the whole management of the feast, A. is obliged to take only ordinary care of the plate. Generally speaking, a hirer who pays for the use of the thing hired may lend or let it; but a person who, as in the case we are now considering, does not pay cannot lend or let, but must be prepared at a11 times to return it to the owner in as good condition as received, fair wear and tear excepted. It is hardly necessary to add that he cannot dispose of or pawn it ; a borrower of a book may not relend it.