As to the lien of warehousemen and wharf ingers for their charges on the goods stored with them, see LIEN.
The hire of things for use transfers a spe cial property in them for the use agreed up. on. The price paid is the consideration for the use: so that the hirer becomes the tem porary proprietor of the things bailed, and has the right to detain them from the gee. eral owner for the term or use stipulated for. It is a contract of letting for hire, analogous to a lease of real estate for a given term. Edw. Bailm. § 325. See HIRE.
In a general sense, the hire of labor and services is the essence of every species of bailment in which a compensation is to be paid for care and attention or labor bestow ed upon the things bailed. The contracts of warehousemen, carriers, forwarding and com mission merchants, factors, and other agents who receive goods to deliver, carry, keep, for ward, or sell, are all of this nature, and in volve a hiring of services. In a more limited sense, a bailment for labor and services is a contract by which materials are delivered to an artisan, mechanic, or manufacturer to be made into some new form. The title to the property remains in the party delivering the goods, and the workman acquires a lien upon them for services bestowed upon the proper ty. Cloth delivered to a tailor to be made up into a garment, a gem or plate delivered to a jeweller to be set or engraved, a watch to be repaired, may be taken as illustrations of the contract. The owner, who does not part with his title, may come and take his prop erty after the work has been done; but the workman has his lien upon it for his reason able compensation.
Where property is temporarily in charge of an incidental bailee such as a shopkeeper, restaurant keeper, barber, bathhouse pro prietor, or the like, as an incident to his gen eral business, the liability of the bailee does not differ in any respect from that of other bailees for hire; Tombler v. Koelling, 60 Ark. 62, 28 S. W. 795, 27 L. R. A. 502, 46 Am. St. Rep. 146 ; Dilberto v. Harris, 95 Ga. 571, 23 S. E. 112 ; Donlin v. McQuade, 61 Mich. 275, 28 N. W. 114 ; Bunnell v. Stern, 122 N. Y. 539, 25 N. E. 910, 10 L. R. A. 481, 19 Am. St. Rep. 519; Buttman v. Dennett, 9 Misc. 462, 30 N. Y. Supp. 247 ; Woodruff v. Paint er, 150 Pa. 91, 24 Atl. 621, 16 L. R. A. 451, 30
Am. St. Rep. 786 ; Goff v. Wanamaker, 25 W. N. C. (Pa.) 358 ; Walpert v. Bohan, 126 Ga. 532, 55 S. B. 181, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 828, 115 Am. St. Rep. 114, 8 Ann. Cas. 89; but see Powers v. O'Neill, 89 Hun 129, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1007; and contributory negligence on the part of the bailor in such cases may re lieve the bailee from liability ; Powers v. O'Neill, 89 Hun 129, 34 N. Y. Supp. 1007. An innkeeper who conducts a public bath house as an incident to his business is not liable to a guest as an innkeeper, but as a bailee for hire; Walpert v. Bohan, 126 Ga. 532, 55 S. E. 181, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 828, 115 Am. St Rep. 114, 8 Ann. Cas. 89; Minor v. Staple. 71 Me. 316, 36 Am. Rep. 318. It is said that the implied contract on the part of a shop keeper (the consideration for which is the chance of profit) that, if customers come to the store, no harm that can reasonably be averted shall overtake them, must be held to extend to the safety of such property as the customers necessarily or habitually car ry with them ; Woodruff v. Painter, 150 Pa. 91, 24 Atl. 621, 16 L. R. A. 451, 30 Am. St. Rep. 786 ; and that the proprietor should provide a safe place for the keeping of such property when the customer while trying on apparel must necessarily lay aside his own ; Bunnell v. Stern, 122 N. Y. 539, 25 N. E. 910, 10 L. R. A. 481, 19 Am. St. Rep. 519 ; but see Wamser v. Browning, King & Co., 187 N. Y. 87, 79 N. E. 861, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 314, where the customer knowing the clerks to be busy, proceeded to wait on himself, knowing there was no one but himself to watch the garments he laid aside.
When the business of the bailee implies skill, a want of such skill as is customary in his calling will render him liable as for gross negligence ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Blanch ard, 68 Ga. 299, 45 Am. Rep. 480 ; Stanton v. Bell, 9 N. C. 145, 11 Am. Dec. 744; even though the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor and the bailee receives no compen sation ; Conner v. Winton, 8 Ind. 315, 65 Am. Dec. 761.
As to the duties and liabilities of common carriers and innkeepers, see those titles. As to warehouse receipts, see that title. See DEPOSIT; MANDATE; HIRE; A01STOR ; SALE; ROLLING STOCK ; LIEN.