William M. Lacy James Kent.

Commentaries on American law, Volume 2 online

. (page 97 of 108)
Online LibraryWilliam M. Lacy James KentCommentaries on American law, Volume 2 → online text (page 97 of 108)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

(d) Pettibone v, Griswold, 4 Conn. Rep. 158. Stoaghton r. Paaco, 5 Ibid.
442. Crane v. Deming, 7 Ibid. 387.

(c) Demandry «. Metcalf, Prec. in Chan. 419. 2 Vern. Rep. 691. Gilliat
r. Lynch, 2 Leigh's Rep. 493.

(g) Ex parte Ockendeu, 1 Atk. Rep. 236. Jones v. Smith, 2 Vesey.jr.,
372. VanderzeetJ. Willis, Z Bro. 21. Bat see Adams v. Claxton, 6 Vesey^
226, where the anthority of the two last cases is somewhat disturbed. Jar-
vis V. Rogers, 15 Mass. R. 389,- 397, 414. Story on Bailments, 205, 2d edit

(A) 15 Mass, Rep. 389.

743 •


by Google


pawuee could not retain the pledge, independent of a special
agreement, for any other debt than that for which the chattel was
epecifically given; and that good faith would require the restora-
tion of it, without deduction on account of any cross demand.
This I think to be the better opinion. It was, however, stated, in
that case, that by the civil law the pawnee might retain the pledge,

not only for the sum for which the pledge was taken,
[ * 585 ] but for the general * balance of accounts, unless there

were circumstanccH to show that the parties did not so
intend (a). If the pawnor has only a limitecl interest in the arti
cles pawned, the pawnee cannot hold them against the person en-
titled in remainder after the particular interest has expired (b) ;
and if a factor pledges the goods of his principal, the pawnee can-
not detain them, not even to the extent of the loan (c). And if
there be various claims upon the fund after the pledge has been
duly sold, the party who was in possession of the pledge is to be
first satisfied his debt (d).*^

As every bailee is in the lawful possession of the subject of the
bailment, and may justly be considered, notwithstanding all the
nice criticism to the contrary, as having a special or qualified
property in it for the protection of that possession; and as he is
responsible to the bailor in a greater or less degree for the custody
of it; he, as well as the bailor, may have an action against a third
person for an injury to the thing; and he that begins the action
has the preference; and a judgment obtained by one of them is a
good bar to the action of the other (e)."

V. Of locatum, or hiring for a reward.

This is the fifth and last species of bailment remaining to be

(a) Oode^ 8, 27. Heinee. Eiem, Jur. aec. ord. pand. 4, sec. 46, and Hub.
Prfelec. lib. 20, tit 6, aec 1, were referred to in support of the doctrine In
the civil law. Pothier, in his TraitS du Contrat de Nantissement, No. 47, lays
down the same rule, and it also exists in the Scottish law. 2 Bell^a C&m,
22, 5th edit

(6) Hoare w. Parker, 2 Term Rep. 376.

(t) Paterson c. Tash, 2 Str. Rep, 1178. Danbigny v. Duval, 5 Term Rep.
604. MX'ombie v. Davies, 7 EasVs Rep, 5.

[d) Marshall r. Bryant 12 Mns^, R. 321. This was also the rule in the
civil law. Dig. 50, 17, 128. Story on BailmenU, 209, 210, 2d edit

{e) Flewellin n. Rave, 1 Bnltft. Rep. 68. Roothr. Wilson, 1 Barnw. dtAld,
• " Allen V, MegKuire, 15 Mass. 490; Green v. Farmer, 4 Burr. 2214.

^ Laooste t>. Pipkin, 13 Sm. & M. 589; Bliss r. Bchaub, 48 Barb. 338;
Riudge V. Colerain, 11 Gray. 158; McGill r. Monette, 37 Ala. 49; Woodman
V. Nottingham, 49 N. H. 387.

• 744


by Google


examined. It is a contract by which the use of a thing, or labour
or services about it are stipulated to be given for a reasonable
compensation, express or implieii (a). It includes the thing let,
the price or recompense, and a valid contract between the letter
and hirer (6). This bailment or letting for hire is of
three kinds; locatio rei, by which the *hirer, for a com- [ * 536 ]
'pensation, gains the temporary use of the thing; locatio
operia faciendiy or letting out of work and labour to be done, or
care and attention to be bestowed by the bailee on goods bailed,
for a recompense; loccUio operi mercium vehendarum, or when
goods are bailed to a public carrier or private person, for the purpose
of being carried from one place to another for a stipulated or im-
plied reward (c).

( 1. ) In the cases of the locatio rei, or letting to hire, the hirer
gains a qualified property in the thing hired, and a letter to hire
an absolute property in the price. This is a contract in daily
use in the common business of life; and it is very important that
the rules regulating it should be settled with clear and exact pre-
cision. The letter, according to the civil law, is bound not to dis-
turb the hirer in the use of the thing during the period for which
it was hired, and to keep the subject in suitable order and repair,
and to pay for extraordinary expenses* necessarily incurred upon
it (d). But the extent of the obligations of the letter, under the
common law, on the point of repairs and expenses, remains to be
defined and settled by judicial decisions (e). The hirer is bound
to ordinary care and diligence, and is answerable only for ordi-
nary neglect; for this species of hiring is one of mutual benefit.
He is bound to use the article with due care and moderation, and

59. Faulkner v. Brown, 13 Wendell, 63. See supra, p. 568, and see Story on
Bailments, p. 74, 191, 192, 205, 2d, edit.

(a) 1 BeWs Com, 255, 451, 6th edit. Story on Bailments, p. 251—254.

{b) Pot flier, TraitS du Contrat de Lounge, No. 6. Story's Com, 250. The
books usually follow the civil law, and consider the price as being payable
in money; but the contract at common law may be classed under the head oi'
location, or locatio-conductio rei, be the recompense what it may. Ibid. 2r)3.

(c) Coggs V. Bernard, 2 Ld. Baym. 909. Jones on Bailment, 27, 90. The
letter or owner who lets out the thing for hire is called in the civil law loca-
tor; and the hirer who has the benefit of the thing for a compensation, the
conductor] and the bailment or contract for hire itself, is called locatio or /o~
catio-co^idnctio, or in Engli.sh location; and this is the language used in the
Scottish law. 1 StairU Inst, b. 1, tit. 15, sec. 1, 5, 6. Wood's Inst of the Cioil
Law, 2Se. Story on Bailments, 247—249, 2d edit.

id) Pothier, TraU^ du Contrat de Louage, No. 77, 106, 107, 129, 130. Civil
Code of Louisiana, art. 2663, 2664. 1 BeiPs Com. 453, 5th edit.

(e) 'story's Comm, 260, 261.



by Google


not apply it to any other use, or detain it for a longer period,
than that for which it was hired (a).'* The responsibility of the
hirer is sufficiently shown by Sir William Jones, in his subtle but
perfectly judicious criticism on the cases in the English and the

Boman law (6). The hirer, says Pothier, is only held
[ * 587 ] to a common diligence, and *an8werable only for slight

neglect He is bound to bestow the same degree of dili
gence that all prudent men use in keeping their own goods, and
to restore the article in as good condition as he received it, unless
it be deteriorated by internal decay or by external means, with-
out his default; and if the article be injured or destroyed without
any fault or neglect on the part of the person who takes un hire,
the loss falls upon the owner, for the risk is with him (c).** But
if the thing hired be lost or damaged by the hirer, or by his ser-
vants acting under him, from the want of ordinary care and dili-
gence, he is responsible (d),^ The bailee, when called upon for
the article deposited, must deliver it, or account for his default
by showing a loss of it by some violence, theft, or accident.

(rt) Pothier, Trniie du Conirnt de Louage, 189. Johnson, J., in De Tolle-
mere r. Fuller. 1 (hwd. Rep. S. C. 121. Wheelock r. Wheelwright, 5 J/nas.
Rq). 104. Story's Comm. 263, 264, 272, 273, 2d edit.

(b) Esnap on Bailment, 66—69..

(c) Polhier, Traiie du CotUrat de Louage, No. 190, 192, 197, 200. Qaraidc r.
T. & M. Navigation Company, 4 Term Rep, 581. Cooper v. Barton, 3 Campb,
Rep. 5, note. Millon v. Salisbury, 13 Johns. Rep. 211. Story's Qm. 2()8 —
27*2. Salter r. Hurat, 5 Miller's Louis. Rep. 7. Heeves v. The Constitution,
Oilpin'H R. 6'39.

(d) Bray r. Nfayne, 1 Gow'^s Rep 1. Dean v. Keate, 3 Campb. Rep. 4. Sfor^^
Comm. 268. Sinclair r. Pearson, 7 N. H. Rep. 219.

'• Lockwood r. Ball, 1 Cow. 322; Rotch f. Hawes, 12 Pick. 136; Harring-
ton r. Snyder, 3 Barb. 380; McNeills v. Brooks, 1 Yerg. 73. If the article be
used for a longerperiod or for a different purpose, and loss happens afterwards,
he is liable. Lucas r. Trumbull, 15 Gray, 306. See, also, Edwards v. Carr,
13 Gray, 234; Fisher v. Kyle, 27 Mich. 454; Wentworth r. McDuffie, 48 N.
H. 402; Lane v. Cameron, 38 Wis. 603: Cullen v. Lord, 39 Iowa, 302. If the
bailee sell the article he will be liable as for a tortious conversion. Fenn r.
Bittleston, 8 Eng. Law & Eq. 483; Sanborn v. Colman, 6 N. H. 14; Sargent
V. Gile, 8 N. H. 325; Swift t). Moseley, 10 Vt. 208.

** If it is delivered to another person it amounts to a conversion. Hall r.
Boston & W. R. R. Co., 14 Allen, 443; Parker v. Lombard, 100 Mass. 405;
Coykendall v. Eaton, 55 Barb. 193; Lichtenhein v. Boston A P. R. R. Co., 11
Cush. 70. If it is injured he is liable, although the owner may have re-
ceived it Iwick again. Reynolds r. Shuler, 5 Cow. 323; Todd t?. Figley, 7
Watts, 542, Murray t?. Burling, 10 Johns. 172; Bowman ». Teall, 23 Wend.
306; Gibbs r. Chase, 10 Mass. 125.

* Thus, if a horse is exhausted and sick, he must not use it. Rowland r.
.Tones, 73 N. C. 52; Thompson v. Harlow, 31 Ga. 348; Collins v. Bennett, 4i5
N. Y. 490; Banfield v. Whipple, 10 Allen, 27; Jackson «. Robinson, 18 B.
Monr. 1.



by Google


When the loss is shown, the proof of negligence or want of due
care is thrown upon the bailor, and the bailee is not bound to
prove affirmatively that he used reasonable care (a).'' The care
must rise in proportion to the demand for it; and things that
may easily be deteriorated require an increase of care and dili-
gence in the use of them. Negligence is a relative term; and
the value of the article, and the means of security possessed by
the bailee, are material circumstances in estimating the requisite
care and diligence. That may be gross negligence in the case of
a parcel of articles of extraordinary value, which, in the case of
another parcel, would not be so; for the temptation to theft, and
the necessity for care, are in proportion to the value (6).'^ Gains
uses the word diligentissimits, when the rule is applied
*in the Roman law to the case of an undertaking to re- [* 588 ]
move a column from one place to another (c).

(2.) The case of locatio operis faciendi, is where work and
labour, or care and pains, are to be bestowed on the thing deliv-
ered, for a pecuniary recompense; and the workman for hire must
answer for ordinary neglect of the goods bailed, and apply a
degree of skill equal to his undertaking. Every man is pre-
sumed to possess the ordinary skill requisite to the due exercise

(a) HarrU v. Packwood, 3 Taunt. Rep, 264. Maish tj. Horne, 6 Barnw, A
Creits. 322. 7 Coieen'f* Rep. 500, note.

[h) Batson r. Donovao, 4 Barnw. dt A*d. 21 . Tracy v. Wood, 3 Mnson^s
Rep. 134. 135. See the cases put by Sir William Jones and Lord Stowell,
by way of llIaBtration of the reason of the distinction between different de-
grees of diligence requisite in different cases. Jones on Bailment, 62. 6 Rob^
Jdm. R. 142, 155.

(c) Dig. 19, 2, 25, 7. Sir William Jones, in his £!s9r?.v on Bailmenl, 67, says,
that the superlative dVigendsainiMS was here improperly applied, and that it
would be a case only of ordinary care. But Ferriere, in his Commeninries
upon the Institutes, tome v. p. 138, thinks otherwise; and that Gains was
speaking of things that might easily be deteriorated, and would require the
most exact diligence for their preservation. The case would depend upon
circumstances. Gains w&s speaking, not of unhewn blocks of granite or
marble, but of columns, which implied, in the midst of the splendid archi-
tecture of Rome, productions of great labour and skill; and in such a case,
it would, no doubt, require the utmost attention to avoid injury to the pol-
ished shall or capital; and especially if that capital was finished in the
Corinthian style, or surmounted by an entablature, adorned with all the
beauty and elegance of the Grecianart

^ Brown r. Johnson, 29 Texas. 43; Adams «. Carlisle, 21 Pick. 146; Cars-
ley r. White, Jd. 254; Tompkins ». Raltraarsh, 14 Sergt. &K. 275; Clark r.
Si)ence, 10 Watts, 3:«; Tourtellotr. Rosebrook, 11 Met. 460; Cross r. Brown.
41 N. H. 2a3; Collins v. Bennett, 46 N. Y. 40.

""See Coggsf. Bernard, 1 Smith L. C. *82. The hirer is not responsible
for inevitable accident or superior force. Field v. Brackett, 56 Me. 121;
Wntkins v. Roberts, 28 Ind. 167; M*£vers v. Steamboat Sangamon, 22 Mo.



by Google


of the art or trade which he assames. Spotidet perUiam ariis^
aQcl Imperitia culpcR annumeratur. If he performs the work un-
skilfully, he becomes responsible in damages (a). Every me-
chanic who takes any materials to work up for another in the
course of his trade, as where a tailor receives cloth to be made
into a coat, or a jeweller a gem to be set or engraved, is bound to
perfoim it in a workmanlike manner; he must bestow ordinary
diligence, and that care and fidelity, which every man of com-
mon prudence, and capable of governing a family, takes of his
own concerns (b). As this contract is of mutual benefit, the
bailee is not answerable for slight neglect, nor for a loss by in-
evitable accident or irresistible force, or from the inherent defect
of the thing itself (c); he is only answerable for ordinary' neg-
lect (d)."
[ * 589 ] * But though he must exercise a care, diligence, and
skill adequate to the business; and if he fails in the
ordinary care and skill which belong to his undertaking, and
the bailor sustains damage, he must answer for that dam age; yet,
if the delivery was of a nature to transfer the property, a differ-
ent result would follow. In the case of a delivery to a gold-
smith of a bar of silver, to be made into vases, or an ingot of
gold, to be made into rings, by the civil law the whole property
passed to the smith, and tlie employer was merely entitled as a
creditor to have metal equally valuable returned in a certain
shape (e). If thb metal in that case should be lost, even by ir-
resistible for^e, the smith as the owner of it, would be held to
bear the loss, and the creditor to be entitled to his vase or ring;
though it would be otherwise, if the same metal was to be returned
in its new form (gr)/*

(fl) BeWs Ow. vol. i. p. 459. Pothier, TmiU du Contrat de Lowige, No.
425, 426.

{b) Dig. 19, 2, 9, 5. Poiher, Ibid, No. 419, 428. 1 BeWs Com. 456, 458.
Duncan r. Blundell, 3 Starkie's R. 6. Story on Bailment, 281, 2d edit.

(c) Polhier, Traits du Contrat de Lomge, n. 4'28. Dig. 19, 2, 13, 5.

((f) Story on Bailment, p. 282, 283, 284, 2d edit

(e) />»sr. 19, 2, 31.

(a) Jones on Bailmettt, 78, 79. Buflum v. Murray, 3 Mason^tfJi. 478.

^ Baird r. Daly, 57 N. Y. 236; Searle r. Laverick, L. R 9 Q. B. 122; Ros-
sell r. Koehler. 66 111. 459; Smith r. Meegan, 22 Mo. 150; Halyard r. Dechel-
Dian, 29 Mo. 459; Co^gs r. Bernard, 1 Bniith, L. C.

*o Pierce v. Schenck, 3 Hill, 28; Foster v. Pettibone, 7 N. Y. 433; Chaser.
Washburn, 1 Ohio St. 249; Barker r. Roberts, 8 Greenl. 101; McKay v,
Hamblin, 40 Miss. 472; Brown v. Hitchcock, 28 Vt 452.



by Google


Id the case of Seymour v. Brmon (a), a quantity of wheat was
sent to a njiller to be exchanged for flour, at the rate of a barrel
of flour for every five bu^^hels of wheat. The miller mixed the
wheat with the mass of the wheat of the same quality belonging
to himself and others, and before the flour was delivered, the
mill, with all its contents, was destroyed by fira It was held,
upon the question who was to bear the loss, that as there was no
fault or negligence imputable to the miller, he was not responsi-
ble for the loss, and that the property was not transferred. It
was considered, that there was no sale within the intention of
the parties. If the same identical wheat was to have been re-
turned in the shape of flour, the decision was correct, according
to the general principles of law applicable to the case. But as it
did not appear to have been understood that the wheat
delivered was to be kept separate, and returned * in [*590]
flour, but only flour equal to wheat of such quantity
and quality, and as the miller acted upon that understanding,
the decision was not conformable to the true and settled doctrine.
There was in that case a transfer of the property in the wheat to
the miller, and he was bound, at his own risk, and at all events,
to have returned the flour.**

There are very embarrassing questions, as has been justly ob-
served (&}, arising in oases where the labour bestowed has not
been properly applied, or not according to contract, or left in-
complete, or where the subject had perished before it was fin-
ished (c). Thus, it was held, in EUis v. Hamlen (rf), that if a
person undertakes to build a house upon a speciflced plan, and with
certain materials, and he departs, without leave, from the terms
of the contract, he is not entitled to any compensation for his

(rt) 19 JohnB. Rep. 44. This decision hM been overruled in the very analo-
j^ons case of Ewing r. French, 1 Black/. Jnd. Hep, 353, and in Hurb v. West,
7 0)inen, 752, 750, note, and in Smith v. Clark, 21 Wendell, 85.

(6) Story's Omm. 287.
• (c) See Hupra, p. 609, pote. The Scottish law deals on this subject npon
very equitable grounds, for it balanceH the inconvenience and damage aris-
ing from the imperfect or faulty performance against the benefit actually de-
rived from the work, and gives the workman either a pra fanto compensation,
or assesses him in damages, as the difierenoe in the result may require. 1
BeWn Com. 455, 456.

(d) 3 Tannf. Rep. 52.

*• See, also, Foster v. Pettibone, 3 Selden, 433; Pierce v. Schenok, 3 Hill,
28; Mallory r. Willis. 4 Comst. 76; Baker v. Woodruff, 2 Barb. 520: Wads-
worth V. Allcott, 2 Selden. 64; Norton v. Woodruff, 2 Comst. 153; The
Idaho, 93 U. S. 575; Cushing i;. Breed, 14 Allen, 376.

749 .


by Google


labonr. This decision rests on the strict gronnd of contract; bnt
the civil law speaks a more benign language, and gives the builder,
acting in good faith, and in cases where the work is unitcnl with
the property of the employer, an indemnity to the extent of the
benefit conferred.^* This is also the mle in the Scotch law (a).
If the employer derives no benefit from the work and labour of
the mechanic; (as where the whole subject matter of the under-
taking is destroyed, by inevitable accident before the work is com-
pleted, and the thing delivered;) even in that case the civil law
gave to the mechanic a rateable compensation for his labour and
expenses bestowed upon the materials of his employer. And
Pothier concludes, that it is just and equitable; for, as fast as
the building advanced, it had become, by accession, part of the
property of the owner (6). So, if an article be delivered to a
mt^hanic to be repaired, or materials are delivered to be vrrought
into a new form and shape, and the thing is accidentally destroyed
before the work is finished and ready for delivery, without any

(rt) 1 BeW)t (hm. 456.

(b) Dig. 19. 2, 59. Pokier, Ttaiie du (hnirat de Louage, No. 433.

*^ The fuUowiDg rnles may be stated npoD this sabject: 1st. If the work
is badly and improperly done, and totally fails and is inadequate for the
purposes for which it was required, the bailee has no remedy. 2nd. If it is
of some value, he is entitled to recover what they are worth. Grant r. But too.
14 Johns. 377; Hillyard r. Crabtree, 11 Texas, 264. 3rd. If the work lias
been undertaken by the job and is not completed and finished owing to wil-
ful neglect or refoaol, he can recover nothing, as there is one entire and com-
plete contract. Faxon «. Mansfield, 2 Mass. 147. 4th. If inevitable acci-
dent prevents completion, he is entitled pro iauta. 5th. If the employer, by
his negligence, prevents the performance of the oontiact, lie is entitled to
oompensation. Dubois r. Del. & Hud. Canal Co., 4 Wend. 456.

,If the work is done on a specific contracts 1st. All its terms must be com-
plied with and the work completed withoat deviation. Jennings r. Camp.
13 Johns. 94; Ellis r. Hamlin, mpra; Taft. v. Montague, 14 Mass. '2&>; Sickels
p. Pattison. 14 Wend. 257.

With regard to claims upon a fuanimm mentii. Ist If the contract is un-
executed by reason of the bailee's miaoonduct or default, he cannot recover.
Clarke r. Smith, 14 Johns. 326; Champlin «. Butler, 18 Johns. 169. 2nd.
If the work has been rescinded by the parties, and the work not completed,
owing to inevitable accident, and cannot be completed, he may recover pro
/fiMfo, unless restrained by the contract Raymond c Beamard, 12 Johns.
274; Dubois r. Del. A Hudson Ouia] Co., 4 Wend. 285. If the employer has
prevented or dispensed with the execution of the work, he may claim in
Aill. Koon r. Greenman, 7 Wend. 121; Dubois r. Del. & Hudson, &c., ubi
stiprn. If the work is improperly or unskilfully done and useless he cannot
rwover, Taf\ r. Montague, 14 Mass. 282; Feeter r. Heath, 11 Wend. 477:
Jennings r. Camp, 13 Juhns. 94. If it is of some use or value he is entitled
to a T^a»nable compensation. Id. If the work is done, but not within the
contract time, be is entitled to full compensation, less the damage sustained
by the employer. /» /.V Trent & Co., L. K. 4, Ch. 112; Philips v. Rose, H
Johns 392; Dubois r. Del A Hudson, Ac. vk'apra.



by Google


fanli or negligence *on the part of the mechanic, the [ * 591 ]
entire loss, according to the English law, falls upon the
owner of the materials; for he is bound to answer for the work
and labour already bestowed. This is the general rale of law,
though it is liable to be controlled by the custom of the trade (a).
According to the French law, if the mechanic was to furnish the
materials, and the thing accidentally perished before completion
and delivery, he bears the loss both of the materials and of his
work; but if the materials were furnished by the employer, and
the workman furnished only his skill and labour, and the article
is destroyed without fault, and before it is finished, the one loses
the materials, and the ottier his labour (6). The Civil Code of
Louisiana follows, in this respect, the rule in the French code (c).
The reason of the distinction is, that, in the one case, the em-
ployer is the owner of the article or subject with which the labour
is incorporated; and, in the other case, the workman is the owner.
The principle is still the same. Res peril domino (d).

Mr. Justice Story (e) subdivides this head of Locatio into 1:
Locatio opens faciendiy or hire of labour and services. 2. Locatio
i:u8todice, or receiving goods on deposit for hire. He includes
under their last head, agisters of cattle, warehousemen and wharf-
ingers; and to these may be added, a class of* bailees known in
this country by the term of forwarding men or merchants. They
are all responsible for want of good faith, and of reasoilable care
and ordinary diligence, and not to any greater extent, unless the
business and duty of carriers be attached to their other
character (g). *Bnt iknkbepers form an exception to [ * 592 ]
the general rule, and they are held responsible to as strict
and severe an extent as common carriers; and the principle was

(a) Menctone v. Atbawea, 3 Burr. Rep, 1592. Gil let v, Mawmen, 1 Taunt.
Rejh 137. Story m Bailment, p. 287, 2d edit.

(ft) Code Civit, No. 1788, 1789, 1790. 2 Pardeesus, Droit Comrn. p. 2, tit 7,
art. 526.

(c) Civil Code of Lomaiana, art. 2731. Segain t\ Debon, 3 Martinis Louis,
Rep. 6.

(d) Story'a Comm. 285.
{e) Ihid, 276.

(g) Carliff v. Danveis, Peahens N. P. Rep. 114. Finncane v. Small, 1 Eap.
N. P. Rep. 315. Garside r. Trent Navigation Co.» 4 Term Rep. 551. Sida-
ways r. Todd, 2 Starkie's N. P. Rep. 400. Piatt v. Hibbard, 7 Qncen^s Rep.
497. Brown r. Dennison, 2 Wendell's Rep. 693. Schmidt v. Blood, 9 Wen-
delVs R. 268. Streeter v, Horlock, 7 Ring. R. 34. JKoberts v. Turner, 12
Joknami's R, 232. Story's Cbmm. 289—297, 2d edit.

Online LibraryWilliam M. Lacy James KentCommentaries on American law, Volume 2 → online text (page 97 of 108)