the bailment is a personal one, the death of the bailee causes the bailment to cease." The effect of a change of legal status is, in some cases, far from clear. Since bankruptcy does not sever contractual relations, it would seem that neither the bankruptcy of the bailor nor that of the bailee operates, of itself, to terminate the bailment. There seem to be few cases involving such a change of legal status as insanity. Probably the insanity of the bailor would not have a greater effect than his death, and the bailment which would continue against his personal representative ought to continue against his committee. Certainly, when the bailment is a personal one, it would be terminated by the bailee's insanity. When the bailment is not personal, the question is more doubtful. It would seem, in such case, that the bailment would not be terminated, but that the insane bailee's rights and liabilities would pass to his committee. The question, as it very seldom arises, is not of great practical importance. SAME-REDELIVERY OF THE BAILED GOODS 57. As in other bailments, the bailee should, on the termination of the bailment, redeliver the bailed goods, together with any increase or profit, according to the directions of the bailor. The principles governing the bailee's duty to redeliver, already discussed in connection with other classes of bailments, are equally applicable here, and will not be repeated. The place of redelivery will usually be determined by contract, custom, or usage. This rule also applies to contracts in general. See Marvel v. Phillips, 162 Mass. 399, 38 N. E. 1117, 26 L. R. A. 416, 44 Am. St. Rep. 370. 8 See Remington on Bankruptcy, § 451. See ante, § 19. See, also, Syeds v. Hay, 4 Term R. (Eng.) 260, per Buller, J.; Pothier, Contrat de Louage, note 197; Pothier, Pand. lib. 19, tit. 2, notes 27, 28, 29. See, also, Schouler, Bailm. (2d Ed.) § 158; Cobb v. Wallace, 5 Cold. (Tenn.) 539, 98 Am. Dec. 435; European & Australian Royal Mail Co. v. Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., 8 Jur. N. S. (Eng.) 136; Erwin v. Arthur, 61 Mo. 386; Stephenson v. Hart, 4 Bing. (Eng.) 476; Stephens v. Elwall, 4 Maule & S. (Eng.) 259; Youl v. Harbottle, Peake (Eng.) 68; Devereux v. Barclay, 2 Barn. & Ald. (Eng.) 702; Willard v. Bridge, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 361; Pothier, Contrat de Louage, notes 197, 198, 200; Pothier, Pand. lib. 19, tit. 2, notes 27, 28, 29; 1 Domat, bk. 1, tit. 4, § 2, note 11; Cooper v. Barton. 3 Camp. (Eng.) 5, note; Millon v. Salisbury, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 211; Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 323. CHAPTER VI BAILMENTS FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT-HIRED SERVICES ABOUT 58. Classification. THINGS 59. Rights and Duties of the Parties-In General. 60. Performance of the Agreed Services by the Bailee. 61. Interest of the Bailee-Right to Bring Suit. 62. Compensation of the Bailee. 63. Expenses of the Bailment. 64. The Lien of the Bailee on the Bailed Chattels. 65. The Degree of Care to be Exercised by the Bailee. 66. 67. Delegation of the Services by the Bailee to a Third Person. Warehousemen. Wharfingers. 68. Safe-Deposit Companies. Factors or Commission Merchants. Officers Charged with the Custody of Public Funds. Termination of the Bailment. 69. Redelivery of the Bailed Goods. CLASSIFICATION 58. Locatio operis bailments, or hired services about a thing, are divided into: (1) Ordinary bailments for hire. (a) Locatio operis faciendi, or hired services about a thing. (2) Extraordinary bailments for hire. (a) Innkeepers. (b) Common carriers of goods. This classification of locatio operis bailments has already been given, and briefly discussed, in the classification of mutual benefit bailments in general. The classification of the ordinary locatio operis bailments is largely one of convenience, based upon differences in the nature of the services hired. Such ordinary bailments, then, may be divided into three classes: (1) Locatio operis faciendi, or the hire of active labor and 1 Ante, § 43. DOB.BAILM.-9 services upon a thing. Examples of this are the hiring of jewelers to set jewels, or watchmakers to repair watches. This bailment is in many respects analogous to a mandatum, differing only in the fact that the services are rendered for a reward. (2) Locatio custodiæ, or the hired custody of a thing. This is simply the receiving of goods on deposit, with a reward to the bailee for such custody. It differs from a depositum in that here the bailee who undertakes the custody of the goods receives a compensation. While it is true that the custody of goods necessarily involves some physical labor and services, there are yet differences between these two classes of locatio operis bailments. The distinction lies in the fact that in locatio operis faciendi the performance of specific services about the goods constitutes the principal undertaking contemplated by the parties, and the bailee's custody is merely incidental, existing solely in order that these services might be performed. On the other hand, in locatio custodiæ the custody of the thing by the bailee is itself the principal undertaking. The bailee is charged solely with keeping the goods, and renders no services unless they are involved in such custody.2 Thus a watchmaker charged with repairing a watch (locatio operis faciendi) has custody of the watch only in order that he may render the specific services involved in making the repairs. In the case of a warehouseman, charged with the storage of goods, the custody is paramount; he has only to keep the goods, performing the more or less inactive services implied by, and involved in, such custody. The distinction between locatio operis faciendi and locatio custodia (both mutual benefit bailments) is precisely the same as the difference between the mandatum and depositum (both bailments for the sole benefit of the bailor)." (3) Locatio operis mercium vehendarum, or the hired transportation of goods. These are simply a particular type of bailment of the class just discussed, the services here consisting in the carrying of the goods from one place to another. It should be. carefully remembered, though, that what is said in the present chapter on locatio operis bailments in general is applicable only 2 Story, Bailm. § 422; Jones, Bailm. 98. 3 Ante, p. 50. Where plaintiff in consideration of a purchase of goods and reimbursement of expenses, agreed to receive, care for, and ship other goods purchased elsewhere, it was a bailee for hire, and not a gratuitous bailee as affecting the degree of care required of it. Michigan Stove Co. v. Pueblo Hardware Co., 51 Colo. 160, 116 Pac. 340. Upon receiving an automobile for repairs, to be made for the mutual benefit of the owner and the repairer, the repairer becomes a bailee for hire, responsible for loss by fire only by failure to exercise ordinary care. Ford Motor Co. v. Osburn, 140 Ill. App. 633. to the private carrier of goods and not to the distinctive common carrier. There are no essential legal differences between the three classes of bailments just enumerated, convenience constituting the basis of such classification. The same rules, accordingly, control the rights and duties of the parties in all three classes. These rules, applicable to all these three classes of the ordinary locatio operis bailments, are discussed in the present chapter. The extraordinary bailments of locatio operis, we have seen,* are as a class sharply differentiated, owing to considerations of public policy, from all other bailments. Not only is this true, but these extraordinary bailments present keen distinctions and differences among themselves. The (a) innkeeper, (b) common carrier of goods," and (c) post office department' will therefore be discussed separately and in great detail. Of these, the common carrier of goods is by far the most important bailee known to our civilization, so that the rights and duties of this bailee are treated with appropriate detail and at corresponding length. RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE PARTIES-IN GENERAL 59. In the hiring of work and labor about a thing, as in other bailments, the rights and duties of the parties are primarily controlled by the bailment contract. When not thus controlled, these rights and duties are implied by law; the distinctive features of the bailments in question being the performance of more or less active services about the goods by the bailee, who receives a compensation for such services. Here, as elsewhere, the bailor and bailee may determine by contract the exact extent and nature of their rights and duties. Such contract will, of course, be valid, unless it is in violation of law. or against public policy. • Ante, § 43. 5 See post, chapter 8. See post, chapters 9-14. See post, chapter 15. • Upon a bailment of goods for work and labor to be done thereon by the bailee, the contract between the parties arises immediately upon the delivery of the goods to the bailee, and he cannot afterwards impose conditions, nor limit his liability resulting from such bailment. Dale v. See, 51 N. J. Law, 378, 18 Atl. 306, 5 L. R. A. 583, 14 Am. St. Rep. 688. See ante, pp. 18-19. As to whether bailee may by contract relieve himself from liability for negligence is not settled. That he cannot, see Patterson v. In locatio operis, the bailor is the person receiving the immediate benefit from the carrying out of the bailment (i. e., the performance of the work and labor); while the compensation or reward (usually, but not necessarily, in money) is received by the bailee. The bailor has now become the hirer, and the bailee is now the letter, of the services. From this distinction flow most of the legal consequences that distinguish locatio operis from locatio rei. PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREED SERVICES BY THE BAILEE 60. The bailee must in good faith perform the agreed services about the chattel. In bailments for hired services about a chattel, the primary duty of the bailee is to perform the agreed services in good faith; 10 for the bailment is created by the bailor for the express purpose of securing the performance by the bailee of the services in question, and it is only in consideration of such services that the stipulated compensation 11 is to be paid. For any breach or failure in this respect the bailee must respond to the bailor in damages. Since the bailment contract is based on a consideration, the bailee is liable if he refuses to enter upon the bailment, a pure nonfeasance. He is equally liable when he does enter upon the bailment, but fails without legal excuse to perform the services as agreed. What these particular services are depends on the specific bailment contract, and such services may Wenatchee Canning Co., 59 Wash. 556, 110 Pac. 379; Hoyt v. Clinton Hotel Co., 35 Pa. Super. Ct. 297. In favor of the validity of such contracts (which is believed to be the better doctrine), see section 106, and cases there cited in note 13. These concern the private carrier for hire, but he is merely an ordinary locatio operis bailee and liable accordingly. 10 This amounts simply to stating that the bailee must perform a valid bailment contract into which he has entered. He contractually undertakes to perform certain services; the bailor agrees by contract to pay the stipulated compensation for such performance. The bailment contract thereby imposes on each the duty of performing his peculiar part of the transaction. See 1 Halsbury, Laws of England, p. 559. Where a United States collector selling goods under distraint agrees with the purchaser to ship the goods to a third person, and to send the purchaser the bill of lading, he is liable for a breach of this agreement. Sprinkle v. Brimm, 144 N. C. 401, 57 S. E. 148, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 679. 11 See post, § 62. |