DEPOSIT was a real contract of the civil or Roman law. It was the simplest of all contracts, and consisted merely in the delivery of an article by one person to another, to be kept without remuneration, and to be restored in specie as soon as the depositor should require.—/nst. iii. 15, s. 3. Return when required was the sole condition of the contract; and no obligation was incurred by the depositary but to exercise ordinary care in preservation of the article. The civil law recognized a distinction, as to the value which might be recovered by the depositor in case of loss, between the case of articles voluntarily deposited, and those which came into the hands of the depositary by the misfortune of the owner, as by fire or shipwreck. In the latter case, double the value of the article might be recovered. There was also a special provision by the edictiYautte, caupones, stabularii, whereby shipmasters, innkeepers, and stablemen were compelled to exercise more than ordinary vigilance over the goods of their customers and passengers.
The principles of the civil law as to D. have been universally adopted by modern nations. In Scotland, the name of the contract is preserved. Lord Stair, i. 13, 2, lays down that the depositary is " not liable for light faults, or for the perishing or deterior ation of the thing deposited by casualty or accident." The article must be restored when demanded, and failure to do this will involve the depositary in liability for the conse quences. See also Erksine, iii. 1, 26.
Deposit, in English law, is a branch of bailments, which includes also loans, pledges, and letting and hiring. From each of these, D. is distinct. It is defined by judge Story to be "a bailment of goods, to be kept by the bailee without reward, and delivered according to the object and purpose of the trust."—Story on Bailments, c.
The chief questions which have arisen in modern times relate to the amount of care which the depositary is bound to exercise. Judge Story lays down the principle to be, not the care which a man takes of his own affairs, but that which a reasonable being would use, and cites in support of his view the case Doorman v. Jenkins, ii. Ad., and Ellis 256, where a person intrusted with money placed it in his own cash-box, and the box having been stolen, the depositary was yet held liable for negligence. So also with jewels or other valuables—the nature of the article implies extra care. Where, how ever, a sealed packet or locked box is deposited, the question arises as to the liability of the depositary. Erskine lays it down broadly, that where such a deposit is made with out showing the contents, the depositary incurs no extra liability. But Story takes a distinction, and states that if the depositary had reasonable ground to believe the con tents were valuable, be incurs liability accordingly. The immense value of the timber trade of America raises in that country questions as to the liability of a landowner for timber left by the river on his ground. On this point, Story indicates that the smallest amount of liability is incurred. Whether or not the depositary may make use of goods left in his charge, is said by the same author to depend on the particular circumstances. If the article would benefit by use, then such use is allowable; but if injury were likely to accrue, it is not. If use is a matter indifferent. then the depositary is not entitled to the use. The admirable work of Story on Bailments is the best authority on this sub ject.