liable for an injury in such use of the chattel which results from a defect in the chattel known to the bailor, and not communicated by him to the bailee (e).

[In all bailments, a special or qualified property is transferred (along with the transfer of the possession) from the bailor to the bailee, the absolute property remaining in the bailor; and on account of this qualified property of the bailee, he, as well as the bailor, may maintain an action against such as injure or take away the chattel (). For, particularly where the bailee is responsible to the bailor, if the goods be damaged while in his custody, or if he do not deliver them up on lawful dermand, it is reasonable that he should have a right of action against those who may injure them or take them away.] And bailees have also, in certain instances, a right of lien, in respect of the goods committed to their charge, the rule of law being, that every person to whom a chattel has been delivered for the purpose of bestowing his labour upon it, has a lien thereon; and he may withhold such chattel from the owner (in the absence at least of any usage or special agreement to the contrary) until the price of that labour is paid. For example, a tailor is not bound to deliver up the clothes which he has made, except upon receiving the price which is justly due for the making (9); and he has a lien on them (called a particular lien) for the price. The law also recognises a general lien, being a lien which entitles the bailee, in a few cases or under special circumstances, to detain a chattel from its owner until payment be made, not only of the expenses incurred on that particular article, but of

any balance that may be due to the bailee on a general account between the bailor and himself. These general liens depend entirely upon the contract between the parties, whether such contract is express or is only implied from the usage of the particular trade or from the previous course of dealings; but this usage (it has been expressly decided) exists in the case of solicitors, bankers, auctioneers, factors, packers, and warehousemen. All such bailees have consequently a lien for the amount of the general balance due to them from their customers.

Innkeepers as bailees.-We must now consider more particularly these two classes of bailees, namely, innkeepers and carriers. And, First, a CoMMON INNKEEPER,—which term includes in law the keeper of every tavern or house of public entertainment in which lodging for travellers is provided (but not a boarding-house keeper (h), nor a lodging-house keeper) (), is held responsible by the common law for the goods and chattels brought by any traveller to his inn, in the capacity of guest there, in every case where they are either lost, damaged, or stolen (k). To this rule there was no exception permitted by the common law, except where it would have been obviously unjust to apply the rule; as, for example, where the goods were lost entirely through the guest's own gross negligence (1), or where they were stolen from his own person, or by his own servant, or from a room which he occupied otherwise than as a guest (m). However, by the Innkeepers Liability Act, 1863, no innkeeper is now liable to make good to a guest any loss or injury to goods or property brought to his inn (not being a horse or other live animal or any gear appertaining thereto, or any

(h) Dansey v. Richardson (1854),

3 El. & Bl. 144.

(i) Holder v. Soulby (1860), 8 C. B. (N.S.) 254.

(k) Calye's Case (1584), 1 Sm. L. C. 115.

(1) Calye's Case, ubi sup.; Medawar v. Grand Hotel Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 11.

(m) Richmond v. Smith (1828), 8 B. & C. 11.

carriage the liability as to which remains as at common law), to a greater amount than 301., except the goods be stolen, lost, or injured through the wilful act, or the default or neglect of the innkeeper or his servant, or unless they have been deposited expressly for safe custody with the landlord. To entitle the innkeeper to the benefit of the Act, it is only required of him, that a copy of this provision should be conspicuously exhibited in the hall or entrance to his inn (n). A common innkeeper is one who has no option as to the customer with whom he will deal, being legally bound to receive and entertain every traveller who presents himself for that purpose, and who is ready to pay his expenses, provided only there be sufficient room in the inn (0), and no impropriety of conduct, or undue prolongation of stay on the part of, the traveller himself (p). An innkeeper is not entitled to detain the person of his guest,-or to strip off his clothes,-in order to secure the payment of the charges which have been incurred; but he has a lien on any goods brought by the defaulter into or upon the premises (q). By the Innkeepers Act, 1878, an innkeeper is empowered, by way of realising his lien, to sell by public auction (after an interval of six weeks, and having first given due notice to the owner) any goods, chattels, carriages, horses, wares, or merchandise deposited or left with him on his premises, in cases where the party depositing or leaving the same has become indebted to him for board or lodging, or for the keep of a horse or other animal left at livery; but any surplus of the sale-proceeds is to be paid over to the owner. Common carriers as bailees. A COMMON CARRIER is one who professes to carry from one place to another such

(n) Spice v. Bacon (1877), 2 Ex. I. 463: Medawar v. Grand

Hotel Co., supra.

(0) The Queen v. Rymer (1877), 2Q. B. D. 136; Browne v. Brandt, [1902] 1 K. B. 696.

(p) Lamond v. Richard, [1897] 1 Q. B. 541.

(q) Robins v. Gray, [1895] 2 Q. B. 501; Gordon V. Silber (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 491.

goods as shall be delivered to him for carriage by any person (). He is looked upon by the common law as an insurer of the goods delivered to him to be carried; that is to say, he is answerable for every loss or injury to such goods, not occasioned by the act of God or the king's enemies (s). He is moreover bound to receive, and without unreasonable delay to forward to their destination (being within the limits of his accustomed journeys), the goods of every applicant who is ready to pay the price of carriage, provided he has room for them in his conveyance (t). But to this liability of carriers, an exception was permitted in the case of any material negligence (in the way of packing or otherwise) on the part of the owner of the goods (u). The liability might also be varied by a special contract between the parties relative to the terms on which any particular goods were to be carried; and it was formerly competent also to the carrier, by a public notice of the terms on which he would deal (as by a notice that he would not be liable for goods beyond a certain value, unless booked as such, and paid for at a higher rate), to limit to a certain extent the measure of his liability. For upon proof-direct or presumptive (~) -that such notice had come to the knowledge of the customer before the goods were sent, the law implied a special contract between the parties conformable to the terms of the notice. And such is still the law with respect to the liability of common carriers (whether by land or water), except as otherwise provided for by statute. The statutory provisions which have modified in some respects the common law liability are shortly as follows:

(r) Dickson v. G. N. Railway (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 176.

(8) Co. Litt. 89; Coggs v. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 918; Nugent v. Smith (1876), 1 C. P. D. 423.

(t) Pickford v. Grand Junction Railway Company (1844), 12 M. & W. 766.

(u) Robinson v. Dunmore (1800), 2 Bos. & P. 419.

(x) Walker v.

(1853), 2 El. & Bl.

York Railway 750.

First, as to Carriers BY LAND :-The Carriers Act, 1830, has provided, that no public notice shall limit or in anywise affect the carrier's liability as existing at common law, for any goods in respect whereof he is not entitled to protection under the Act. But it proceeds to enact, that no carrier by land shall be liable for any loss or injury to gold or silver coin, jewellery, lace (not including machinemade lace) (y), engravings, and a variety of other articles specified in the Act, when the aggregate value of the parcel delivered for carriage shall exceed ten pounds, unless at the time of delivery the value and nature of the contents shall have been declared, and such increased freight paid thereon, as by a legible notice affixed in the office of the carrier shall have been previously advertised to the public, as the scale by which such articles will be charged for. If no such notice shall have been affixed, or increased charge demanded on the value being declared (:), or if the carrier shall refuse (on being paid the increased charge) to give a receipt acknowledging the parcel to be insured, or if loss or injury arise from the felonious act of a servant in the carrier's employ (a), then he is not entitled to the benefit of the statute, but remains liable as at common law. The Act contains also a proviso, that nothing contained therein shall affect any special contract between the carrier and the customer, or shall protect any servant of the carrier from liability for loss occasioned by personal neglect or misconduct ().

his own

The liability of railway, canal, and navigation companies respect of the carriage of goods is the same as that of other carriers, except so far as varied by certain statutes, and in particular the Railway and Canal Traffic Acts of 1854 to 1894, and the Regulation of Railways Acts, 1840 to

(y) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 94.

(2) The Great Northern Railway Company v. Behrens (1862),

7 H. & N. 950.

(a) Stephens v. London and South Western Railway (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 121.

(b) Richardson [1894] A. C. 217.

V. Rowntree,