— — —
.
.
540 Sect.
Bailment. 3.
Gratuitous
Loan for Use.
at the time of lending, or subsequently authorised by him (l). Further, he is not liable for injuries occasioned by defects'^ of which unaware ^(m) hij^i
Sub-Sect. Use of chattel.
insurer Use must be personal.
User of Chattel
from commodatum.
he uses
liable
as
it
an
(p).
When, however,
the actual user by a third party is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the chattel lent, the mere fact of its being lent for use implies a limited power of delegation in the borrower (q). Thus the loan of a traction engine, a threshing machine, or some other piece of machinery, must, in the majority of cases, of necessity imply both superintendence and use by some person other than the actual and responsible borrower (r). Gratuitous Quasi-h ailment,
4.
Sub-Sect. distinguished
for the parif
(n)
Sect.
Mutuum
lent.
Generally speaking, the permission accorded by the owner of a chattel to a borrower to use it is purely personal, and cannot, except by the express consent of the owner, be extended to a third party (o). The reason for this limitation is obvious. The chattel is lent by the owner to a person with whose capacity and honesty he is presumably familiar. Should the borrower therefore license a third party to use it, the bailment is thereby determined, and the borrower becomes responsible for any accident that may
happen Exceptions.
4.
The borrower must use the chattel only ticular purpose for which it was lent to him, and for any materially different purpose he becomes 1101.
1.
Mutuum.
1102. Mutuum. is the loan of something which is not to be returned but which is to be replaced by something similar and equivalent (s). The contract of mutuum differs from that of commodatum, in that in the latter a bare possession of the chattel lent, as distinguished from the property in it, vests in the in specie,
(l) Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter Rail. Co. (1858), 8 E. Coleridge, J., at p. 1051. Coughlin v. {m) MacCarthy v. Young (1861), 6 H. & N. 329
&
B.
1035,
'per
Gillison, [1899]
Q. B. 145. See also (?i) Bac. Abr. Bailment, C ; Potliier, Pret a Usage, s. 21. Coggs V. Bernard (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 909, jjer Holt, C.J., at p. 915, "if a man should lend another a horse to go westward or for a month, if the bailee go northward or keep the horse above a month, if any accident happen to the horse in the northern journey, or after the expiration of the month, the bailee will be chargeable." The French rule is the same (Code Civil, art. 1881). (o) Story on Bailments, s. 234. 1
and see Gwilliam v. Twist, (p) Bringloe v. Morrice (1676), 1 Mod. Rep. 219 B. 84. [1895] 2 Story says that if A. lends his horse to B. to {q) Story on Bailments, s. 234. make a certain ride, B. alone may ride him, but that if he lends his horses and carriage to B. for a month the user of them by B.'s family may be fairly presumed to be contemplated by A., and without doubt B.'s servants could ride or drive the horses for properly exercising them. (r) See Lord Camoys v. Scurr (1840), 9 C. & P. 383, where the defendant was held entitled to put up a groom to ride a mare lent to defendant for trial.
a
(s)
Justin. Inst.
lib. 3,
tit.
14.
