BAILMENT 271 
should be demanded would be less than where the 
animals were loaned for the use of the bailee, free 
of charge. Midway between these would be the 
case in which the animals are hired out for the 
mutual benefit of both; the bailee gets the use of 
the animals, and the bailor receives pay for their 
service. Where an animal is loaned free for the use 
of the bailee, the highest degree of care and dili- 
gence to insure the safe return will be demanded 
of the bailee in law, and if injury results because 
of his slight negligence he will be held strictly 
to account therefor.2, But when as an accommo- 
dation to the owner a man assumes the care of his 
stock, and expects nothing in return for his labor, 
and perhaps pasture, the law will presume only 
the exercise of a slight degree of diligence, and 
will hold him for damages only when they are the 
result of his gross carelessness or negligence.* 
When the bailee either hires the use of the ani- 
mals, or takes the animals to care for, the court 
will only expect him to use such ordinary care as 
he would were they his own; and will hold him 
responsible only for ordinary negligence. 
A man driving along an open country road 
might permit the horse to take his own way much 
of the time without being negligent; but the same 
horse must be driven with a guiding rein through 
a crowded city street. A sound horse may be 
driven with less guidance than one which is known 
2 Howard v. Babcock, 21 Ill. v. Harlow, 31 Ga. 348; Bass v. 
259; Robertson v. Brown, 1 U. Cantor, 123 Ind. 444, 24 N. E. 
C. Q. B. 345. 147; Wolseheid v. Thome, 76 
3 Line v. Mills, 12 Ind. App. Mich. 265, 43 N. W. 12. 
100, 39 N. E. 870; Thompson 
