confer a personal favor or benefit on such bailee, necessarily no longer exists. The passing of the interest of a person after his death to his representative is sometimes called an assignment by operation of law. These considerations would seem to justify the rule, even in bailments for a definite time or specific purpose, that the loan for use (which is gratuitous) is terminated on the death of the bailee."" Termination by Change of Legal Status of Parties-Bankruptcy The bankruptcy of the bailor, if the loan is an indefinite one (so that the bailee has only a possessory interest), it would seem, terminates the bailment; the bailor's right to the goods passing to the bankrupt's trustee. The federal Bankrupt Act (Act July 1, 1898, c. 541, 30 Stat. 544 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3418]), however, recognizes and preserves valid liens, and the term "lien” is given a very broad meaning. The special property of the bailee (in bailments for definite time or specific purpose), then, it would seem, is not affected by the bankruptcy of the bailor," provided, of course, the bailment is not in any way fraudulent under the Act. The bankruptcy of the bailee, by transferring the administration of his business affairs to his trustee and indicating that he is unable to meet his financial obligations, renders him unable to perform properly the duties of a bailee, and at least (it would seem) gives the bailor the right to terminate the bailment if the bailee's bankruptcy does not operate of itself to bring the bailment to an end. It hardly seems fair to presume that the bailor intended the continuance of the gratuitous personal benefit conferred on the bailee, after the bankruptcy of the latter. Same-Insanity The insanity of the bailor probably terminates an indefinite loan (in which the bailee has only a possessory interest), and the right to the goods loaned passes to the insane person's committee. The bailor's insanity, it would seem, does not affect the special property of the bailee, where the loan is definite as to time or specific as to purpose, provided, of course, that the bailment was created while the bailor was sane. The bailee's insanity renders him utterly unfit to perform any of the duties of a bailee, and it seems that it would therefore operate as an immediate termination of all loans for use. It would scarcely seem fair to infer that the bailor contemplated continuing gratuitous benefit on the bailee during the latter's insanity, with all the attendant risks. 40 See Farrow v. Bragg's Adm'r, 30 Ala. 261; Smiley v. Allen, 13 Allen (Mass.) 465; Morris v. Lowe, 97 Tenn. 243, 36 S. W. 1098. 50 See 1 Loveland on Bankruptcy (4th Ed.) §§ 310, 435. Same-Marriage of Woman The marriage of a woman at common law, owing to the tremendous change wrought as to her legal status, whether she be bailor or bailee, would probably terminate the gratuitous loan. Under modern emancipation acts, however, which practically give the rights of a feme sole to a married woman, her marriage would hardly affect a bailment. REDELIVERY OF THE BAILED GOODS 42. The general principles affecting the delivery of goods by the bailee on the termination of the bailment are the same here as in other classes of bailments. The place of delivery, in the absence of any contrary provision, should be the bailor's house, factory, or store. The primary duty of the bailee, on the termination of the bailment, is the redelivery of the goods forming the subject-matter of the now extinct bailment. In general, the rules of law affecting the various aspects of such redelivery as to a gratuitous loan for use are those applicable to bailments in general. Brief mention should be made, however, of one distinctive feature of the gratuitous loan, the place of delivery. Place of Delivery In regard to the place at which, on the termination of the gratuitous loan, the goods should be returned by the borrower, only 51 See ante, p. The thing borrowed is not only to be returned, but everything that is accessorial to it. Thus, the young of an animal, born during the time of the loan, is to be restored; and the income of stock, which has been lent to the borrower to enable him to pledge it, as a temporary security, also belongs to the lender. ORSER v. STORMS, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 687, 18 Am. Dec. 543, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 60; Hasbrouck v. Vandervoort, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 74; Booth v. Terrell, 16 Ga. 20, 25; Allen v. Delano, 55 Me. 113, 92 Am. Dec. 573. When no time has been fixed for a termination of the loan, the return must be made in a reasonable time. Wilcox v. Hogan, 5 Ind. 546; Green v. Hollingsworth, 5 Dana (Ky.) 173, 30 Am. Dec. 680; Ross v. Clark, 27 Mo. 549; Lay's Ex'r v. Lawson's Adm'r, 23 Ala. 377. The bailee is liable for breach of contract if he fails to return at the time specified. Fox v. Pruden, 3 Daly (N. Y.) 187; Clapp v. Nelson, 12 Tex. 370, 62 Am. Dec. 530. The borrower is bound to return the article loaned at the time stipulated, or, if no time is fixed, in a reasonable time; and whether it had become his duty to return it or not, where a loss occurred, is a question of fact, to be found by a jury. Green v. Hollingsworth, 5 Dana (Ky.) 173, 30 Am. Dec. 680. Where there has been a temporary exchange of articles of property, there is no principle that requires that the one shall be returned to the former owner before the other can be recovered. Hoell v. Paul, 49 N. C. 75. general principles can be laid down. When the bailment contract covers this point, that will, of course, be controlling. If, however, no particular place is pointed out by the contract, and no specific place can be reasonably inferred from custom, usage, or the circumstances of the transaction, the normal place of delivery would be the dwelling, factory, or store of the lender." The reason for this is that, since the bailor receives no benefit from the bailment, his convenience (rather than that of the bailee, receiving all the benefit) should be consulted and as little trouble as possible should be given to him. It therefore seems reasonable that the bailee should bring the goods to the bailor rather than that the bailor should be compelled to go for them to the bailee. If the bailor has in the meantime removed his domicile to another place, the bailee is not bound to return the thing at the new residence; but he is bound only to return it at the former residence, unless, indeed, there is but a trifling difference in the distance between them. The common law seems not to have laid down any definite or special rules on the subject, but has left the decision to be determined by the varying and particular circumstances of each individual case according to the presumed intention of the parties. A demand by the bailor for the return of the goods (as is true of other bailments) need not be made at the place of delivery. 52 The plaintiff loaned his carriage, in June, to the defendant, it being then stored at a stable in the city in which both parties resided; and, in December following, the defendant returned it to the same stable, after the stable keeper had ceased to be plaintiff's agent. Held a conversion. It should have been returned to plaintiff at his residence. ESMAY v. FANNING, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 176, 5 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 228, Dobie Cas. Bailments and Carriers, 36. And see Rutgers v. Lucet, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 92. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. Expenses about the Bailed Chattels. Degree of Care to be Exercised by the Bailee. Liability of Bailee for Acts of his Agents or Servants. Termination of the Bailment. Redelivery of the Bailed Goods. CLASSIFICATION OF MUTUAL BENEFIT BAILMENTS' 43. Bailments for the mutual benefit of the bailor and bailee may be thus classified: 1. Locatio, or hiring. A. Locatio rei, the hired use of a thing. B. Locatio operis, hired services about a thing. (1) Ordinary bailments for hire. (a) Locatio operis faciendi, hired services about a thing. (b) Locatio custodia, the hired custody of a thing. (c) Locatio operis mercium vehendarum, or the hired carrying of a thing. (2) Extraordinary bailments for hire. (a) Innkeepers. (b) Common carriers of goods. 2. Pignus, or pledge. The general principles applicable to gratuitous bailments are in the main equally applicable to mutual benefit bailments. The fundamental distinction between these classes of bailments is that in the latter both the bailor and the bailee contemplate receiving 1 This classification is practically that of Goddard, Bailm. & Carr. § 64. some benefit or advantage from the bailment. On this fact depend many important differences in the rights and liabilities of the parties. The question of what constitutes a benefit sufficient to make the bailment one for mutual benefit (rather than a gratuitous one) has already been discussed." Bailments of this class are the usual bailments of commerce and may be created for an almost infinite variety of purposes. Since the great majority of bailments fall within this class, the practical importance of the questions involved justifies a very much more elaborate and detailed discussion than has been given to the subject of gratuitous bailments. For the purpose of indicating subdivisions in the analysis of mutual benefit bailments, the names of the corresponding classes in the Roman law have been used; for these make up the natural and logical divisions of the subject, and this terminology has the advantage of familiarity. The first great division of mutual benefit bailments is into two large classes (1) Locatio, or hiring; and (2) pignus, or pledge. The pledge differs from all other bailments in that the bailment. exists, not for itself alone, but merely as incidental to, and security for, the performance of the principal obligation. Pledges are discussed at some length in chapter 7. The locatio or hiring bailments are first divided into (A) locatio rei, or the hired use of a thing; and (B) locatio operis, or hired services about a thing. Locatio operis bailments are in turn divided into (1) ordinary bailments for hire; and (2) extraordinary bailments for hire, including innkeepers, common carriers of goods, and the post office department. In these extraordinary bailments, considerations of public policy involve such unique distinctions that they are keenly differentiated from other bailments. They are accordingly discussed separately, and not in connection with the other bailments of the various classes. The classes of ordinary bailments of the hiring of services about a thing can be all treated together, as the distinctions are largely for convenience alone. As we have already seen, custody ordinarily involves services, and services on the bailed chattel require its custody in order that they may be performed. The carrying of a thing from one place to another is only a specific kind of service about a chattel, involving (when performed by a private and not a common carrier) no unique principles of the law of bailments. 2 Ante, §§ 23, 33. It is immaterial whether the benefit is in fact ultimately received or not. It is essential, however, that the bailment be constituted with the intention of securing such benefit. This benefit, while commonly money on one part at least, may be anything else of value. Post, chapters 8-15. DOB.BAILM.-7 |