341 



The obligations contingent upon hiring horses, 

 and the rights of innkeepers and liverymen, are so 

 nearly allied to the subject of my work, that I shall 

 very briefly notice one or two cases upon these 

 topics. In Handford v. Palmer, 2 Brod. and Bing. 

 359, it is decided, that "a party who borrows a horse 

 is bound to keep it, unless an agreement is made 

 to the contrary;" and it is to be observed, that the 

 question in this case, was not at whose expense the 

 horse was to be fed, but whether he had been pro- 

 perly fed by the borrower, and returned, therefore, 

 in as good a condition as he was when the loan 

 was made. I need scarcely mention, that this was 

 a case of hiring, and not of borrowing. 



But I shall hereafter quote one or two cases 

 which will show that even a borrower must be 

 equally careful of the animal lent to him. Indeed 

 the principle of law is, that a borrower is answer- 

 able for neglect of much slighter degree than is 

 requisite to fix a hirer, for as the lender derives no 

 profit from the transaction, it is reasonable that 

 extra care should be taken of his property. 



In Bray v. Mayne, Gow N, P. 1, it is decided 

 by C. J. Dallas, that " after a hired horse is ex- 

 hausted, and has refused its feed, the hirer is 

 bound not to use it; and if he afterwards pursue his 

 journey with it, he is liable to the owner for its 

 value." 



