Bailment.
534 Sect.
however, it appears that such persons are to be considered as gratuitous bailees, on whom the duty hes of taking such care as a reasonable owner would take of his own property of a similar kind(y).
1.
Deposit,
Sub-Sect,
1086. The
Effect of nsins: chattel.
his
5.
— User
of Chattel
bailee is precluded from using the chattel bailed for in any manner whatsoever without the
own personal advantage
consent of the bailor, express or implied, unless such use is needful Apart from such necessary use, if the bailee apply the chattel to any purpose other than that of bare custody he becomes responsible for any loss or damage resulting from his breach of good faith (Z), except where the cause of the loss or damage is independent of his acts and is inherent in the chattel itself iin). The act of the bailee in doing something inconsistent with the terms of the contract terminates the bailment, causing the possessory title to revert to the bailor, and entitling him to maintain an action of trover {n). A fortiori this rule applies when the unwarranted action of the bailee results either in the destruction or permanent alteration in character of the thing bailed (o). If the chattel deposited is contained in a sealed or locked receptacle, the depository has no right to open it, and it is a breach of the confidential relation on which this contract is based if he does so unnecessarily {p). for its preservation (k).
Opening of receptacle.
Consequence of breach of duty.
1087.
If
a bailee deals with the chattels intrusted to him in a the bailor, he takes upon himself the risk
way not authorised by of so doing.
Place of deposit.
If, therefore, the bailee without necessity, and without the permission of the bailor, fails to keep the chattel intrusted to him in the place where he has undertaken to keej) it, that is, apart from express agreement, in the place where he himself usually keeps his own chattels of a similar description, he becomes by reason of his breach of duty an insurer .of the chattel, and is liable to the bailor for any loss or damage caused thereby (5), unless he can show that such loss or damage did not arise out of his breach of duty, but must have taken place as inevitably at the one place as at the other (?•).
(y) Bullen V. Swan Electric Engraving Co. (1906), 22 T. L. R. 275, affirmed (1907), 23 T. L. R. 258. {k) Re Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154, where money was handed to be taken care of, but with the intention that the bailee might use it. North, J., held (p. 156) that it " was received, not as a loan, but as a trust for safe custody." (I) Pothier, Contrat de Depot, ss. 34, 35. (m) Lilley v. DouUeday (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 510, yer Grove, J., at p. 511. {n) Fenn v. Bittleston (1851), 21 L. -T. (ex.) 41. (0) Wilkinson v. Verity (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 206. Pothier, Contrat de Depot, s. 38. See also R. v. Rohson {imi 31 L. J. {jp)
(m. c.) 22. .
(q) Ibid. ; Mytton v. Cock (1738), 2 Str. (r) Lilley v. Boubleday, supra, at p. 511
per TiNDAL, C.J., at p. 724.
1099.
Davis
v.
Garrett (1830), 6 Bing. 716,
