ter upon which it acts, changes with the execution of each contract. What would be ordinary diligence in taking care of iron, would not be sufficient in the custody and preservation of gold. The jury must inquire into the nature of the property, and the extent of care ordinarily exercised by persons of common prudence, and capable of governing a family, in the preservation of the like kind of property.

11. When the bailor delivers horses and cattle to the bailee for pasturage for a compensation, the bailee is not responsible if they are stolen from the pasture. But if the bailee leave the bars or gates of the pasture open, and in consequence of his neglect they stray and are stolen, he is liable to the bailor for the loss.

CHAPTER LXXI.

RESPONSIBILITY OF BAILEE.

1. By the rules of the common law, every man is responsible for injuries occasioned by his own personal negligence, and for those occasioned by the negligence of those whom the law denominates his servants, while engaged in the business for which he employed them. When the owner of a carriage hires of a stable-keeper a pair of horses, and the owner of the horses provides a driver, through whose negligent driving an injury is done to a third person, it is held that the owner of the carriage is not liable for the injury, because the driver is not his

in all cases? How illustrated by the care of iron and gold? Into what must the jury inquire?

11. When the bailor delivers horses or cattle to the bailee for pasturage for a compensation, who is responsible if the cattle are stolen?

1. For what injuries is every man responsible, by the rules of the com mon law? If the owner of a carriage hire of a stable-keeper, a pair of horses to draw his carriage, and the stable-keeper furnish a driver, through whose negligent driving an injury is done to a third party, who

servant. The owner of the horses, who employs and sends his servant to drive them, is liable for all injuries occurring through his neglect. The driver is his servant, though not under his immediate superintendence. It is not necessary that the servant be employed by the bailee in person, or that he should be under the master's immediate and personal superintendence, in order to render him liable for injuries caused by his servant's neglect.

2. The bailee is held liable for the acts of his servants, on the ground that the servant is supposed to act under the direction of his employer. The employer is not liable to a servant for an injury sustained through the negligence of a fellow-servant engaged in the same employment.. The bailee is not liable for the wilful acts of his servant, done without his direction or consent, and in his absence. But he is liable for the negligence of his servant acting in his employ. In order to charge the master, it must be shown that the relation of master and servant existed in that particular affair. A careless act of the servant, is the act of the master. The master is answerable for the servant's negligence and want of skill, but he is not answerable for his wilful injuries.

3. The bailee of a chattel for hire must use ordinary diligence in taking care of it. If a hired horse be taken ill, and the bailee call in a farrier, he is not answerable for any mistake which the farrier may commit in the treatment of the horse; but if the bailee or his servant attempt to prescribe for the horse, and from want of skill gives him medicine which causes his death, though he act

is responsible for such injury? Why? Is it necessary that the servant be under the immediate superintendence of the master?

2. On what ground is the bailee held liable for the acts of his servants? Is the employer liable to a servant for an injury sustained through the negligence of a fellow-servant engaged in the same employment? For what acts of the servant is the bailee not liable? In order to charge the master, what must be shown? Whose is the careless act of the servant? For what acts is the master answerable, and for what not answerable?

3. In what must the bailee for hire use ordinary diligence? If a hired horse be taken ill, and the bailee call in a farrier? If the bailee or his

in good faith, he will be guilty of gross negligence, and liable to pay for the horse.

4. When an action is brought against the bailee for an injury sustained by the bailee's negligence, the burden of proof is upon the bailor, to show that the injury occurred through the bailee's neglect. But when the bailee returns the hired property in a damaged condition, and refuses or fails, at the time or subsequently, to give any account of the manner the injury occurred, negligence will be presumed on his part, and the burden of proof will be upon him to show a want of negligence. The degree of care required by law varies according to the nature of the property hired, and the circumstances in which it is placed; but it is measured always by that diligence which, under the circumstances, a man of ordinary prudence and discretion would exercise in reference to the same kind of property if it were his own.

5. The burden of proof lies upon the party alleging a fact, which he must establish by evidence on the trial of an action. If the bailor allege that the injury or loss of his property occurred through the negligence of the bailee for hire, he is bound to prove this fact by evidence. It is not enough for him to prove a loss, but he must show that it was caused by the negligence of the bailee. The bailee is presumed to exercise due care and diligence until the contrary be proved, unless he has neglected or refused to give an account of the injury or loss of the property.

servant attempt to prescribe for the horse, and, for want of skill, give him medicine which causes his death?

4. When an action is brought against the bailee for an injury caused by the bailee's negligence, upon whom is the burden of proof? If the bailee returned the hired property in a damaged condition, and refused or failed to give any account of the manner the injury occurred? How does the degree of care required by law vary? By what is it always measured?

5. Upon whom does the burden of proof lie? If the bailor allege that the injury or loss of his property occurred through the negligence of the bailee for hire? What is not enough for him to prove? What is the bailee presumed to have done, until the contrary be proved? If he has refused or neglected to give any information of the cause of the loss or injury?

6. The bailee for hire is bound to confine himself to the use for which he stipulated. If the bailee hire a horse, he is bound to ride it as moderately, and treat it as carefully, as any man of common discretion would treat his own horse. If through his negligence, as by leaving the door of his stable open at night, the horse be stolen, he must answer for the loss. If he be robbed of the horse by a highway robber he is not responsible, unless by his imprudence he gave occasion to the robbery, as by travelling at unusual hours, or by taking an unusual road. If the bailee hire horses and carriage, and the owner send a coachman, the bailee is discharged from all attention to the horses, and he is then required only to take ordinary care of the inside of the carriage while he sits in it.

7. If the bailee hire a horse for a particular service, or for a particular journey, or for a particular time, he is bound to use the horse for that particular service or journey, and no other, and to return him at the expiration of the time stipulated. If he put the horse into some other service, or perform some other journey, or detain the horse beyond the time stipulated, it is an unlawful use of the horse, and the bailee renders himself liable for all accidents which may happen to the horse. The contract is terminated by the loss of the thing bailed.

6. To what is the bailee for hire bound to confine himself? If the bailee hire a horse, what is he bound to do? If through his negligence the horse is stolen? If he be robbed of the horse by a highway robber? If the bailee hire horses and carriage, and the owner send a coachman?

7. If the bailee hire a horse for a particular service, or for a particular journey, or for a particular time? If he put the horse into some other service, or perform some other journey, or detain the horse beyond the time stipulated? If the horse die, or the thing bailed be lost?

17

CHAPTER LXXII.

INNKEEPERS AND THEIR GUESTS.

1. PERSONS entertained at a hotel as travellers, are deemed guests. If the innkeeper invite a person to his house as a friend, he does not become a guest, so as to create any responsibility on the part of the innkeeper, because he does not receive him in that capacity. If the traveller leave his horse or baggage at an inn, and go out to dine or lodge with a friend, the rights and liabilities of the parties remain the same as though the traveller had not left the inn. If the guest leave the hotel, and go to another town, intending to be absent two or three days, the same rule applies, so far as relates to the property for the care and keeping of which the host is to receive a compensation. If property be left at the hotel for which the host receives no advantage, and during such absence of the guest the property be stolen, the host will not be answerable. If the guest retain his room, so as to be chargeable for it, he may be considered a guest, even when he leaves at the hotel only inanimate property.

2. It is not necessary that the property of the guest be placed in the special keeping of the host, in order to make him liable, unless required by statute. The host is responsible for the property of his guest committed to his

1. Who are guests? If the innkeeper invite a person to his house as a friend, does he become a guest? Why not? If a traveller leave his horse or baggage at a hotel, and go out to dine? If the guest leave the hotel, and go to another town, intending to be absent two or three days? If property be left at the hotel for which the host receives no advantage, and during the absence of the guest the property is stolen? If the guest retain his room, so as to be chargeable for it?

2. Is it necessary that the property be placed in the special keeping of the host, in order to make him liable? When is the host responsible for the property of his guest committed to his care? What is the host,