Smith v. New Haven, etc., R. Co.. 104 | Thornton v. Mehring..

U. S. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. 985 | Williams v. Jones.
U. S. v. American Linseed Oil Co.

Williams v. McGrade.

374

8

863

Vredenbergh v. Morris.
Vrooman v. Jackson..

Walker v. Mottram.

U. S. v. Long.

U. S. v. Schrader's Son, Inc..... 946
U. S. Mut. Accident Ass'n v. Barry 768
Upham v. Richey...

209

Willis v. Kronendonk. Wilson v. City Bank.. Wilson v. Finney. Wilson v. Lloyd.. Wilson v. Rybolt. Van Houten v. Hooton Cocoa Co. 930 Wilson v. Troup. Vermont Marble Co. v. Brow..... 171 Winchester v. Watson... Von Bremen et al. v. MacMonnies 894 Winchester Wagon Works & Mfg. Voorhis v. Freeman.. 398 Co. v. Carman.. 366 Windemere-Grand

509

813

8

337

359

277

656

176

Wetherbee v. Green.. 472, 478, 479, 481 | Zwergel v. Zwergel..........

. 410 .442,444

571

Young v. Chandler..

100 Young v. Hichens..
838

2. Beginning of the Relation-Delivery and Acceptance.
3. Rights of the Bailor.

4. Special Property of the Bailee.

5.

Bailments for the Exclusive Benefit of the Bailor.

6. Bailments for the Exclusive Benefit of the Bailee.

7.

Bailments for the Mutual Benefit of Bailor and Bailee. 8. Duty of Bailee to Keep Within Terms of Bailment.

9. Estoppel of Bailee to Deny Bailor's Title.

SECTION 1.-INTRODUCTION

A bailment is a delivery of a chattel or chattels under the terms of an express or implied contract that the purposes of the bailment will be executed, and that the chattel or chattels shall be returned by the bailee to the bailor as soon as the purposes of the contract of bailment shall have been fulfilled.1

1 "Bailment is a delivery of goods in trust, upon a contract, expressed or implied, that the trust shall be duly executed, and the goods restored by the bailee, as soon as the purpose of the bailment shall be answered.

"There are five species of bailment, according to Sir William Jones, in his correction of Lord Holt's enumeration of the different sorts of bailments. "I. Depositum, or naked deposit without reward.

"II. Mandatum, or commission, which is gratuitous, and by which the mandatary undertakes to do some act about the thing bailed.

"III. Commodatum, or loan for use without pay, and when the thing is to be restored in specie.

"IV. A pledge, as when a thing is bailed to a creditor as a security for a debt.

"V. Locatio, or hiring for a reward." Kent's Commentaries, vol. II, p. 558. "Many attempts have been made to define a bailment, but none is free from criticism. For our purpose it is enough to say that a bailment is a contract relation resulting from the delivery of personal chattels by the owner, called the bailor, to a second person, called the bailee, for a specific purpose, upon the accomplishment of which the chattels are to be dealt with according to the owner's direction." Goddard on Bailments and Carriers, § 1.

"A bailment may be defined as a delivery of personalty for some particular BAU.& DIL.B.L.-1 (1)

The following are all types of bailment: A. lends his book to B. C. leaves his watch, with D., the jeweler, for repairs. E. places his goods in the hands of F., a railroad company, for shipment. G. leaves his suitcase with H., the corner druggist, who gratuitously promises to take care of it until G.'s return. M. pledges his overcoat to N., the pawnbroker, to secure payment of $10, which M. has borrowed of N.

Bailments of one kind or another are a part of the everyday life of nearly every person. As we shall see, the variety of bailments is great. In some respects, all bailments are alike; in other respects, they are widely different. Usage attaches some incidents to one kind of bailment and other incidents to another kind. In this chapter we shall consider the subject generally, giving some attention to classification, and much attention to the general rules that govern all kinds of bailments. In the chapters that follow, particular classes of bailments are considered.

KRAUSE v. COMMONWEALTH.

(Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1880. 93 Pa. 418, 39 Am. Rep. 762.)

TRUNKEY, J. The indictment contained two counts: (1) Larceny; (2) larceny by bailee; the alleged stolen property was the same in both. To the first count Krause pleaded a former acquittal, on which plea verdict and judgment were rendered in his favor. He was then tried and convicted on the second.

In the charge of the court, the commonwealth's case, as proved, was fairly stated thus: On December 13, 1878, the prosecutor sold and the defendant agreed to purchase the two horses; that the price agreed upon was $150, to be paid on delivery, the prosecutor to take the horses to the defendant's stable, at Allentown, the next day and receive the money; that he took them to said stable and left them; that other interviews and negotiations followed, continuing up to the Thursday of the next week, when the horses disappeared from the stable, and were sold or converted by the defendant to his own use; that when the horses disappeared from the stable the defendant had only $25, and it was then agreed that the horses should continue to be the property of Deemer, who would not sell them, except for cash; that he would wait till the following Tuesday evening, when, if the defendant should not have the money to buy the horses, they were to be taken to Deemer, at Schoenersville, and with this understanding Deemer accepted the $25; that on Tuesday evening the defendant took one of the horses to Schoenersville, and the next evening went again, taking the other horse, on each occasion taking the horse back with him; that on Thursday Deemer went to Allentown for his horses, and offered to return the $25 to the defendant, but he refused to give them; and that the original contract was never changed, the horses were sold only for cash, and the

purpose, or upon mere deposit, upon a contract, express or implied, that after the purpose has been fulfilled it shall be redelivered to the person who delivered it, or otherwise dealt with according to his directions, or kept until he reclaims it, as the case may be." 6 C. J. 1084.

BAU.& DIL.B.L.