420 BAILMENT. 



is liable only for lack of ordinary care.* And where the 

 plaintiff having a horse for which he had no use, to avoid the 

 expense of keeping it, requested the defendant to take it and 

 do his work with it in consideration of its food and keeping, 

 this was held not to be a mere gratuitous loan, under which 

 the defendant would be required to use extraordinary care but 

 a contract for the mutual benefit of both parties under which 

 ordinary care was sufficient.^ In ordinary cases of borrow- 

 ing, however, the bailment does not lose its gratuitous char- 

 acter because the bailee pays for the keep of the animal while 

 he has it in his possession.** Where a horse was placed by 

 A. in B.'s possession with the understanding that it was to be 

 worked for its food and was to do A.'s plowing and milling 

 and to be used by A. when she wanted it, this was held to be a 

 contract of bailment and governed by the principle that the 

 bailee cannot dispute the bailor's title.'' 



Where one rides a horse at the request of the owner for the 

 purpose of exhibiting and offering it for sale without any 

 benefit to himself, he is bound to use such skill as he pos- 

 sesses and, if proved to be skilled in the management of 

 horses, is equally liable with a borrower for an injury done 

 to the horse.^ 



An agreement whereby one undertakes to make a horse 

 gentle and fit for the use of the owner's family in consider- 

 ation of permission to ride it, is a contract of hiring and not a 

 gratuitous loan.^ So, one who is hired to drive horses is 

 like a bailee for hire and liable only for negligence, unskilful- 

 ness or wilful misconduct.-^" One with whom a horse is left 



' La Borde v. Ingrahatn, i Nott & McC. (S. C.) 419; Nichols v. Balch, 

 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 452; Colton v. Wise, 7 111 App. 395. 



" Chamberlin v. Cobb, 32 la. 161. ' Bennett v. O'Brien, 37 111. 250. 



' Maxwell v. Houston, (0 N. C. 305. 



' Wilson V. Brett, 11 M. & W. 113. But there being no personal benefit, 

 it may be doubted whether extraordinary care could be required in such 

 a case. 



" Neel V. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 408. 

 " Newton v. Pope, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 109. 



