426 BAILMENT. 



affecting the measure of care he was bound to exercise for 

 their recovery.** 



Where, without fault or neghgence on the part of the 

 borrower of a horse he was met by some cavalry officers of 

 the United States who took the horse forcibly from him, 

 he was held not liable. "The borrower is not liable if 

 the goods be taken from him by robbery or irresistible force, 

 or stolen out of his possession, he having exercised such extra- 

 ordinary care. If, however, by his own rashness, he expose 

 the property to such peril, he will be liable." *^ And, there- 

 fore, where one who hires a horse and buggy to go to a 

 certain town and return agrees to put them in a livery-stable 

 while at such town but fails to do so, he is liable to the owner 

 for their value, if they are stolen.*^ 



When animals are hired for certain uses and put to different 

 uses also and when rettirned are found injured, the reasonable 

 inference is that the injury occurred while they were being 

 improperly used.*'^ And where a party hires a team and a 

 driver to be used at a certain place or for a certain purpose 

 and uses them otherwise, he is responsible for an injury with- 

 out any negligence on the driver's part : the driver is not the 

 agent of the owner in respect to obeying such directions of 

 the bailee as are not contemplated in the contract.*® So, one 

 hiring a horse for a definite time and using it after the time 

 has expired, is liable for any injury that may happen to it.*® 

 A disregard of instructions as to the manner of using a horse 

 will render a bailee for hire liable when the loss is occasioned 

 thereby — a gratuitous bailee, perhaps, absolutely.^" The 

 subject of driving or riding horses beyond the agreed point 

 is treated of in § 102, infra. 



" Maynard v. Buck, 100 Mass. 40. 



■■" Watkins v. Roberts, 28 Ind. 167. " Line v. Mills, 12 Ind. App. 100. 

 " Buchanan v. Smith, 10 Hun (N. Y.) 474. 



" De Voin v. Mich. Lumber Co., 64 Wis. 616. And see Fox v. Young, 

 22 Mo. App. 386. 

 *° Stewart v. Davis, 31 Ark. 518. ^ Cullen v. Lord, 39 la. 302. 



