A bank (national or otherwise) accustomed to keep securities, whether authorized to do so by its charter or not, is liable for their loss by gross carelessness ; First Nat Bank v. Graham, 79 Pa. 106, 21 Am. Rep. 49; Turn er v. Bank, 26 Ia. 562 ; Chattahoochee Nat. Bank v. Schley, 58 Ga. 369 ; Gray v. Merri am, 148 Ill. 179, 35 N. E. 810, 32 L It. A. 769, 39 Am. St. Rep. 172 ; Preston v. Prath er, 137 U. S. 604, 11 Sup. Ct. 162, 34 L. Ed. 788; see First Nat. Bank v. Bank, 60 N. Y. 278, 19 Am. Rep. 181; contra, Whitney v. Bank, 50 Vt 389, 28 Am. Rep. 503. A na tional bank has power to receive such de posits ; National Bank v. Graham, 100 U. S. 699, 25 L. Ed. 750.
So when a person receives an article and undertakes gratuitously some commission in respect to it, as to carry it from one place to another, he is only liable for its injury or loss through his gross negligence. It is enough if he keep or carry it as does bis own property ; 6 C. Rob. Adm. 141; Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mas. 132, Fed. Cas. No. 14,130; and cases above. A treasurer of an tion who receives no compensation is only liable for gross negligence in paying out funds, as he is a gratuitous bailee; Hibernia Building Ass'n v. McGrath, 154 Pa. 296, 26 AU. 377, 35 Am. St. Rep. 828. See MANDATE. As to the amount of skill such bailee must possess and exercise, see 2 Kent 509; Story, Bailm. § 174 ; Fellowes v, Gordon, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 415 ; Beardslee v. Richardson, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 25, 25 Am. Dec. 596; Ferguson v. Por ter, 3 Fla. 27 ; 11 M. & W. 113 ; and more skill may be required in cases of voluntary •offers or special undertakings; 2 Kent 573.
The borrower, on the other hand, who re ceives the entire benefit of the bailment, must use extraordinary diligence in taking care of the thing borrowed, and is responsible for even the slightest neglect ; Niblett v. White's Heirs, 7 La. 253 ; Moore v. Westervelt, 27 N. Y. 234 ; 2 Ld. Raym. 909; Ross v. Clark, 27 Mo. 549 ; Green v. Hollingsworth, 5 Dana (Ky.) 173, 30 Am. Dec. 680. See Hagebush v. Ragland, 78 Ill. 40.
He must apply it only to the very purpose for which it was borrowed ; 2 Ld. Raym. 915; Story, Bailm. § 232 ; cannot permit any other person to use it; 1 Mod. 210; Wil cox v. Hogan, 5 Ind. 546; Sarjeant v. Blunt, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 76 ; cannot keep it beyond the time limited ; Wheelock v. Wheelwright, 5 Mass. 104 ; and cannot keep it as a pledge for demands otherwise arising against the bailor; 2 Kent 574. See 9 C. & P. 383 ; Cham berlin v. Cobb, 32 Ia. 161.
A borrower cannot recover for injuries caused by a defect in the thing borrowed, where such defect is hidden and the bailor had no knowledge of it; [18991 1 Q. B. D.
145. In a bailment for hire it is said to be the duty of the bailor to use due care to find hidden defects; 6 Q. B. Div. 685. The ob ligation of the lender goes no further than to make known to the borrower a defect in the subject matter of the bailment should he know of the existence of such defect ; he is not liable for an injury caused by a defect, even if he might have known of it ; 6 H. & N. 329; 8 El. & Bl. 1035; Gagnon v. Dana, 69 N. H. 264, 39 AU. 982, 41 L. R. A. 389, 76 Am. St. Rep. 170 ; but if he knows of a defect and by gross negligence omits to in form the borrower of it, an action may be maintained ;. 68 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 147.
When the property has been lost or de stroyed without fault on his part, he is not responsible to the owner ; Clark v. U. S., 95 U. S. 539, 24 L. Ed. 518; Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Moore, 183 U. S. 653, 22 Sup. Ct. 240, 46 L. Ed. 366 ; but when he contracts either expressly or by fair implica tion to return the thing even though it has been lost or destroyed without negligence ou the bailee's part, such contract must be en forced according to its terms; Sturm v. Bo ker, 150 U. S. 312, 14 Sup. Ct. 99, 37 L. Ed. 1093 ; Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Moore, 183 U. S. 654, 22 Sup. Ct. 240, 46 L. Ed. 366.
In the third class of bailments under the division here adopted, the benefits derived from the contract are reciprocal : it is ad vantageous to both parties. In the case of a pledge given on a loan of money or to secure the payment of a debt, the one party gains a credit and the other security by the con tract. And in a bailment for hire, one party acquires the use of the thing bailed and the other the price paid therefor : the advantage is mutual. So in a bailment for labor and services, as when one person delivers mate rials to another to be manufactured, the bailee is paid for his services and the owner receives back his property enhanced in val ue by the process of manufacture. In these and like cases the parties stand upon an equal footing: there is a perfect mutuality between them. And therefore the bailee can only be held responsible for the use of ordi nary care and common prudence in the pres ervation of the property bailed; Knapp v. Curtis, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 60; 5 Bingh. 217 ; Bakwell v. Talbot, 4 Dana (Ky.) 217 ; Fulton v. Alexander, 21 Tex. 148 ; Mayor and Coun cil of Columbus v. Howard, 6 Ga. 213 ; Brown v. Waterman, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 117. A bailee for hire is supposed to take such care of property as a reasonably prudent man would of his own ; Cloyd v. Steiger, 139 Ill. 41, 28 N. E. 987.