HIRING is a contract by which one employs, for a limited time, another's property or labor for some consideration or reward. Where the thing hired is land or houses, see LANDLORD AND TENANT. In the Roman law, hiring was divided into-1. Locatio or the hiring of a thing; 2. Locatio operis faciendi, or tie hiring of work and labor; 3. Locatio custmlice, or the hiring of care and services to he performed or bestowed on the thing delivered; 4. Locatio operts MerClitin vehencbtrnm. the hiring of the carriage of goods from one place to another. These phrases are still sometimes employed both in the law of England and Scotland, but the subjects are more conveniently treated under other heads: see INN, LODGINGS, SERVANTS, CARRIERS, SHIPPING. The only branch of the subject which seems to fall properly under this head is the hiring of task-work or job work. Sometimes it is difficult to establish a contract of this kind, but in general there must be either an express or implied contract to pay for the services. Thus, if A, seeing B's horse running away, at sonic expense catches it, and brings it back to B, there having been no contract or engagement on B's part to pay, he is not bound to pay A for ins services. however beneficial they have been, nor can A keep B's horse till such expenses are paid. So, if B leis deposited a chattel with A, who has incurred exti•iordinary expense in preserving it, l is not bound to pay anything. In the Roman law, however, and in the law of Scotland, A could keep the horse or chattel till he was repaid his expenses, or he could sue B for these. In England, however, there must at least he some implied request or contract. When a person is hired to do a thing in in given time, and takes much longer, or deviates front the contract, he is neverthless entitled to be paid for his services, for the contract is riot rescinded on these grounds. unless there
was an express stipulation to that effect. During the progress of the contract, it is sometimes material to know which of the parties hears the loss in case or fire. It is difficult to lay down the rule in such cases, for everything depends on the nature of the contract. Whoever is the owner, in law, of the material at the time, bears the loss of it by an accidental fire. If, for example, a tailor engage to make a coat and to furnish the materials for a fixed sum, tams is, in fact, two contracts—viz., a sale of the materials, and also Work, nod labor bestoWed on them; and in case of destruc Lion of the subject before completion, the loss of the materials falls on the hirer, and the loss of the labor falls on the workman. So if a printer engaged for a fixed sum per sheet to print and complete a book, the hirer would bear the accidental loss of the paper, and the printer the loss of his labor and skill. Much, however, depends in all these cases on the terms of the contract. Where is workman engages to do work, he impliedly warrants to have reasonable skill: otherwise, if the work is useless, he can not recover his money. In the case of robbery while goods are in the hands of a work man to work up, if the robbery resulted from his negligence, he bears the loss. So if he merely lost it. In case of a horse or chattel being hired, and accidental damage done, the onus in England lies on the owner to prove negligence in the hirer; but in Scotland the contrary rule prevails, and it lies on the hirer to prove he used due care.