BAILEE. One to whom goods are bailed ; the party to whom personal property is de livered under a contract of bailment.
His duties are to act in good faith, and perform his undertaking, in respect to the pioperty intrusted to him, with the diligence and care required by the nature of his en gagement.
When the bailee alone receives benefit from the bailment, as where he borrows goods or chattels for use, be is bound to exercise extraordinary care and diligence in preserving them from loss or injury ; Ben nett v. O'Brien, 37 Ill. 250 ; Ross v. Clark, 27 Mo. 549; but he is not an insurer; 9 C. & P. 383.
When the bailment is mutually beneficial, as where chattels are hired or pledged to se cure a debt, the bailee is bound to exercise ordinary care in preserving the property ; Petty v. Overall, 42 Ala. 145, 94 Am. Dec. 634; Dearbqurn v. Bank, 58 Me. 275 ; Erie Bank v. Smith, 3 Brewst. (Pa.) 9; St. Losky v. Davidson, 6 Cal. 643.
When the bailee receives no benefit from the bailment, as where he accepts chattels or money to keep without recompense, or undertakes gratuitously the performance of some commission in regard to them, he is answerable only for the use of the ordinary care which he bestows upon his own proper ty of a similar nature; Edw. Bailm. § 43. It has been held that such a bailee would be liable only for gross neglect or fraud ; Mc Kay v. Hamblin, 40 Miss. 472 ; Gulledge v. Howard, 23 Ark. 61 ; Edson v. Weston, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 278; Burk v. Dempster, 34 Neb. 426, 51 N. W. 976; Hibernia Bldg. Ass'n v. McGrath, 154 Pa. 296, 26 Att. 377, 35 Am. St. Rep. 828. The case must have rela tion to the nature of the property bailed; Jenkins v. Motlow, 1 Sneed (Tenn.) 248, 60 Am. Dec. 154.
These differing degrees of ence have been doubted. See BAILME The bailee is bound to redeliver or return the property, according to the nature of his engagement, as soon as the purpose for which it was bailed shall have been accom plished. Nothing will excuse the bailee from delivery to his bailor, except by showing that the property was taken from him by law, or by one having a paramount title, or that the bailor's title had terminated; v. R. Co., 36 N. Y. 403; Burton v. Wilkin son, 18 Vt. 186, 46 Am. Dec. 145; Bliven v. R. Co., 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 191.
He cannot dispute his bailor's title ; Edw. Bailm. § 73; Dougherty v. Chapman, 29 Mo. App. 233; nor can he convey title as against the bailor, although the purchaser believes him to be the true owner; Hendricks v.
Evan5 46 Mo. App. 313.
The bailee has a special property in the goods or chattels intrusted to him, sufficient to enable him to defend them by suit against all persons but the rightful owner. The depositary and mandatary acting gratuitous ly, and the finder of lost property, have this tight ; Edw. •ailm. I 245; Garlick v. James, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 147, 7 Am. Dec. 294.
A bailee with a mere naked authority, having a right to remuneration for his trou ble, but coupled with no other interest, may support trespass for any injury amounting to a trespass done while he was in the actu al possession of the thing; Edw. Bailin. 37; Faulkner IT. Brown, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 63; Moran v. Packet Co., 35 Me. 55. A bailee may recover in trover for goods wrongfully converted by a third person; McGraw v. Pat terson, 47 Ill. App. 87.
A bailee for work, labor, and services, such as a mechanic or artisan who receives chattels or materials to be repaired or man ufactured, has a lien upon the property for his services; 2 Pars. Contr. 145, 146; 3 id. 270-273; Wheeler v. McFarland, 10 Wend. (N. Y.) 318. Other bailees, innkeepers, com mon carriers, and warehousemen,, also, have a lien for their charges.
The responsibilities of a bailee cannot be thrust upon one without his knowledge and against his consent ; they must be voluntari ly assumed by him or his agents ; First Nat. Bank of Lyons v. Bank, 60 N. Y. 278, 19 Am. Rep. 181 ; Story, Bailm. 60. A constructive acceptance is sufficient; Rodgers v. Stophel, 32 Pa. 111, 12 Am. Dec. 775; as where one comes into possession by mistake; 1 Str. 505; Morris v. R. Co., 1 Daly (N. Y.) 202; or for tuitously; Preston v. Neale, 12 Gray (Mass.) 222, citing Story, Bailin. § 44 a ; or where it is a custom of trade; Westcott v. Thompson, 18 N. Y. 363. Where property is consigned to a person as bailee, with specific directions as to its disposal, he may refuse to Wept; Kansas Elevator Co. v. Harris, 6 Kan. App, 89, 49 Pac. 674; since a person has tbe same right to decline becoming a bailee as he has to decline becoming a purchaser ; King v. Richards, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 418, 37• Am. Dec 420; but innkeepers, common carriers, wharf ingers or warehousemen, as persons exercis ing a, public employment, are not within this rule. See those titles.
See also Schouler, Bailm.; Coggs v. Ber nard, Sm. Lead. Cas.; BAILMENT.