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, 
12Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Ld. 571; Stewart v. Davis, 31 Ark. 
Raym. 909. 518. 
13 Homer v. Thwing, 3 Pick. 14 Graves v. Moses, 13 Minn. 
492; Malaney v. Taft, 60 Vt. 335. 
