neglect to exercise that degree of care which an ordinarily prudent man usually bestows on his own property of a like description.18 § 15. Compensation and Reimbursement. The right of a bailee to recover compensation is to be determined primarily by the contract itself. In order to recover, the bailee must show performance according to its exact terms.19 So where it is not contemplated by the contract of bailment that the bailee should receive any compensation for his services, no right thereto exists unless a new contract is made providing therefor.20 The statutes provide generally for the compensation of bailees in the absence of an express stipulation in the contract, determined by the nature of the bailment. Thus it is not contemplated by the statutes that a gratuitous bailee shall receive any compensation for his services. A bailee for hire, however, under a bailment for the benefit of both parties is presumed to be entitled to compensation." In the absence of a different agreement, a depositary for hire is entitled to half a month's hire for the storage of any other property than animals during any fraction of a half month. If the subject of the bailment is destroyed through the fault or negligence of the bailor, the bailee is nevertheless entitled to recover his compensation.* But where a contract provides for the storage of goods for a certain period, and does not provide for contingencies, or for proportionate compensation for proportionate services, the bailee cannot recover compensation for a part of the time of the contract, where the goods are destroyed and he is unable to deliver them at the termination of the contract period. This is the rule even though the property is destroyed without fault on the part of the bailee.5 Reimbursement.-Under certain circumstances the bailor must compensate the bailee for services, or money expended, or for other causes. Thus it is provided by the Civil Code that a depositor must indemnify the depositary for all damage caused to him by defects or vices of the thing deposited, and for all expenses necessarily incurred by him about the thing, other than such as are involved in the nature of the undertaking. Under a bailment for the benefit of the bailee, such as a loan for use, the bailee must bear all expenses during the loan, except such as are necessarily incurred by him to preserve it from unexpected and unusual injury, for which he can seek compensation from the bailor." And under a loan for use, the lender must indemnify the borrower for damage caused by defects or vices in it, which he knew at the time of lending and concealed from the borrower. Under a bailment for hire, the bailor must indemnify the bailee or hirer for failure to put the property in a condition fit for the purpose for which he lets it, and repair all deteriorations thereof not caused by the hirer and not the natural result of its use. The bailee for hire must, however, bear all expenses covering the subject of the bailment as might naturally be foreseen to attend it during its use by him.10 Where a bailee converts property received by him to his own use, any expense incurred by him in getting possession thereof, or improving its quality, must be borne by himself.11 9 5. Cunningham v. Kenney, 105 Cal. 118, 45 Am. St. Rep. 30, 38 Pac. 645. See WAREHOUSES. 6. Civ. Code, § 1833. 7. Civ. Code, § 1892. 8. Civ. Code, § 1893. 9. Civ. Code, §§ 1955, 1957. 10. Civ. Code, § 1956. 11. Lehmann v. Schmidt, 87 Cal. 15, 25 Pac. 161. § 16. Right to Lien Generally-Enforcement-Waiver or Loss.-The general principle governing the right of a bailee to a lien is that where the law compels a person to take the care and custody of goods he shall have a lien on the property for his reasonable and just charges therefor.12 And the same rule applies to a person who, by his labor and skill, has imparted additional value to the goods intrusted to his care. Section 1856 of the Civil Code provides that "A depositary for hire has a lien for storage charges, which is regulated by the title on liens." In the title on liens there are no provisions directly applicable to the liens of depositaries for hire, but in view of the provisions of sections 2997 and 2998 of the Civil Code,13 as well as the general similarity between pledge-holders and depositaries, the provisions relative to the sale of pledged property are appropriate to the sale of property by a depositary for hire, in the absence of a special provision relating to the latter.14 The provisions of the Civil Code relating to the sale of pledged property are sections 3000 to 3011; and they require a sale by auction upon notice to the public usually at the place of sale, and "actual notice to the pledgor of the time and place of sale at which the property pledged will be sold, at such reasonable time before the sale as will enable the pledgor to attend"; or the "pledgee may foreclose the right of redemption by a judicial sale under the direction of a competent court."15 The bailee's actual want of 12. Lewis v. Tyler, 23 Cal. 364. See CARRIERS; INNKEEPERS; LIENS. 13. Heath v. Judson Freight Forwarding Co., 32 Cal. App. Dec. 206, 190 Pac. 839 (holding that by virtue of sections 1856 and 2144 of the Civil Code, a forwarding company has a lien for services performed on the order of the owner of goods placed in its custody). See infra, § 17. Section 2997 of the Civil Code reads: "A pledgee, or pledge-holder for reward, assumes knowledge of the residence of the bailor cannot excuse him of want of notice to him of the time and place of sale.16 One other section of the Civil Code17 relates to the manner in which a bailee who is a depositary for hire may enforce his lien. This section provides: "If from any cause other than want of ordinary care and diligence on his part, a depositary for hire is unable to deliver perishable property, baggage or luggage received by him for storage, or to collect his charges for storage due thereon, he may cause such property to be sold, in open market, to satisfy his lien for storage; provided, that no property except perishable property shall be sold, under the provisions of this section, upon which storage charges shall not be due and unpaid for one year at the time of such sale." Upon the sale of stored goods by a bailee to pay storage charges thereon, without actual notice to the owner, the bailee is liable to the owner for conversion of the goods.18 Waiver or loss.-A bailee having a lien on the property bailed who refuses, upon proper demand, to deliver the property without setting up his lien thereon, or who bases his refusal on a claim other than that of lien, waives his right to claim a lien after action commenced. 19 And where a bailee who has goods in his charge states to one who is about to take possession of them by legal process that he has no charges on the goods, this amounts to a waiver of his lien, if any existed.20 While, as a general rule, redelivery of the bailed property with the consent of the bailee terminates the bailment and lien, if the bailor recovers possession of the property wrongfully, without the consent of the bailee, the bailment is still in existence; and if the property is 16. Stewart v. Naud, 125 Cal. 596, 58 Pac. 186. 17. Civ. Code, § 1857. 18. Stewart v. 596, 58 Pac. 186. 19. Williams v. Naud, 125 Cal. 180, 43 Pac. 595; Sutton v. Stephan, 101 Cal. 545, 36 Pac. 106; Lehmann v. Schmidt, 87 Cal. 15, 25 Pac. 161. See Civ. Code, § 2910. 20. Blackman v. Pierce, 23 Cal. 509. delivered back to the bailee in a new capacity, as a special bailee or agent, the bailee will be entitled to it and his lien thereon, against the owner and third persons.1 § 17. Lien for Services.-The Civil Code gives to a person who works, alters or repairs any chattel a lien thereon, and provides for the sale thereof to satisfy his lien. Under sections 3049 and 3051 of the Civil Code, a machine company doing repair work on a dredger and making certain new parts therefor is entitled, where part of the work under its contract has been performed, to retain possession of the undivided part of the work until the purchase price of all the work has been paid. And where, under such a contract, the machine company refused to install the balance of the work until the new price was paid, and the dredging company, being unable to make payment, prevailed upon the former to complete the work upon the execution by a bonding company of a guaranty of payment, the delivery of the articles without receiving payment is a good consideration for the guaranty. Where one person enters upon the land of another for the purpose of manufacturing railroad ties thereon, under contract with the owner of the land, the person so entering and manufacturing has a lien upon the property, and the right to retain possession thereof until the lien thereon should be discharged by the payment of the amount due him for the manufacture of the same. However, an employee of one who contracts to peel tan bark from trees has no lien on bark peeled for which he has not been paid by the contractor. The lien provided by section 3051 of the Civil Code belongs strictly to the person who has contracted with the owner to do the work.5 1. Palmtag v. Doutrick, 59 Cal. 154, 43 Am. Rep. 245. 2. Civ. Code, §§ 3051, 3052. This provision is constitutional. Davenport v. Grundy Motor Sales Co., 28 Cal. App. 409, 152 Pac. 932. 3. Union Machine Co. v. Chicago Bonding etc. Co., 36 Cal. App. 585, 172 Pac. 1113. 4. Douglass v. McFarland, 92 Cal. 656, 28 Pac. 687. 5. Quist v. Sandman, 154 Cal. 748, 99 Pac. 204, holding that the employee cannot depend upon the |