BAILMENT 275 



and deceit. Also, if a horse be hired to drive 

 to a certain place, or for a certain time,^^ and the 

 bailee should drive much further, or use it much 

 longer, and in consequence the horse be injured, 

 it would be held that in addition to negligence 

 in the care of the animal the bailee had used fraud, 

 and he would be held strictly liable for the full 

 amount of damage resulting from his overuse.^ ^ 



It is the duty of the owner of an animal hired 

 out and returned in a sick or injured condition, 

 or in a condition which results in sickness, to give 

 such animal proper care.^* If the owner simply 

 lets his animal die he cannot recover for the loss 

 of the animal from the bailee through whose neg- 

 ligence or misfeasance the illness or injury oc- 

 curred. The owner can recover for the injury, 

 and for the necessary expense of treatment, but 

 he cannot recover for the increased loss due to 

 his own negligence. He should employ a veterina- 

 rian that the loss be as small as possible. 



228. Warranty of Bailor. Impliedly the bailor 

 warrants that the animal let is fit and suitable for 

 the purpose for which it is let. This warranty 

 is not absolute, but it implies that with ordinary 

 diligence the owner could discover no reason why 

 it might be not suitable. To hold the bailor liable 

 for damage resulting from the letting out of a 

 vicious horse it was held in a comparatively recent 

 case in Massachusetts that it is necessary to show 

 that the owner knew that the horse was vicious, 



12 Coggs V. Bernard, 2 Ld. 571; Stewart v. Davis, 31 Ark. 

 Eaym. 909. 518. 



13 Homer v. Thwing, 3 Pick. i4 Graves v. Moses, 13 Minn. 

 492; Malaney v. Taft, 60 Vt. 335. 



