LIVERY-STABLE KEEPER. 223 



for the keep of tlie horse, it was held that the defendant 

 could not set off the price as money received for his use, 

 it having ceased to be so when the contract was defeated 

 by the purchaser, although the defendant was ignorant of 

 the fraud (k). 



A livery-stable keeper who undertakes for reward to He must take 

 receive a horse or carriage and lodge it in a stable or I'^asonable 

 coach-house, is bound to take reasonable care {!■). The horse. 

 obligation to take reasonable care of the thing entrusted to 

 a bailee of this class, involves in it an obligation to take 

 reasonable care that any building in which it is deposited 

 is in a proper state, so that the thing deposited may be 

 reasonably safe in it ; but no warranty or obligation is to be 

 implied by law on his part that the building is absolutely 

 safe. The fact that the building has been erected by the 

 livery-stable keeper on his own ground makes no difference 

 to his liability (m). 



In Searle v. Laverick («), the plaintiff brought his horses 

 and two carriages to the defendant, a livery- stable keeper ; 

 the carriages were placed under a shed on his premises, a 

 charge being made by him in respect of each. The shed 

 had just been erected, the upper part still being in the 

 hands of workmen. The defendant had employed a builder 

 to erect the shed for him as an independent contractor, not 

 as his servant, and he was a competent and proper person 

 to employ. The shed was blown down by a high wind, 

 the defendant being ignorant of any defect in it, and the 

 carriages were injured, upon which the jjlaintiff brought 

 an action against him. At the trial, the above facts 

 having been admitted, the judge rejected evidence to prove 

 that the fall of the shed was owing to its being unskilfully 

 buUt through the negligence of the contractor and his 

 men ; and he nonsuited the plaintiff, ruling that the 

 defendant's liability was that of an ordinary bailee for 

 hire, and that he was only bound to take ordinary care in 

 the keeping of the carriages, and that if he had exercised in 

 the employment of the builder such care as an ordinary 

 careful man would use, he was not liable for damage 

 caused by the carelessness of the builder, of which the 

 defendant had no notice. And this nonsuit and ruling 

 were held right. 



{k) Murray v. Mann, 2 Ex. 538. L. T., S". S. 89. 

 \l) Searle y. Laverick, L. E., 9 (««) Ibid. 



Q. B. 122 ; 43 L. J., Q. B. 43 ; 30 («) Ibid. 



