Part
—
——
. .
Gratuitous Bailment.
II.
543
combination, an}^ cost attendant on its separation into shares being borne by the bailee (//). But if there be a diversity in quality in the substances so intermixed, the whole heap should be divided and a greater allowance made to the owner wdiose substance is better or finer than that of the other (It).
Part
III.
— Bailment
for
Sect,
4.
Gratuitous Quasib ailment.
Valuable
Consideration. Sect. SrB-SECT.
1106. The hire to that of deposit
Nature of
1.
custody
of
Hire of Custody.
1.
the
Contract.
(locatio custodice) is
a contract analogous Hire
The two contracts, however, materially differ in that whilst in from deposit there is no reciprocity of advantage, all the benefit being conferred on the bailor, in the contract of hire of custody there is a mutual advantage to both the ow^ner of the chattel and the
who undertakes
to keep it safely for reward (j) custody for reward, which is consensual and need not be evidenced by writing, necessitates for its inception the concurrence of the four following conditions (1) The subject-matter must be a chattel (2) The possession of the chattel must be capable of transference from one party to the other the chattel must be the object of the (3) The custody of transference of possession (4) The transference of the custody must be temporary and not
person
The contract
permanent {k). Given these conditions, the obligation of the custodian for hire commences as soon as he by any overt act evidences an intention of exercising responsibility over the chattel intrusted to him. Such, for instance, would be the act of applying a crane to raise goods into a warehouse (l)
{g)
Buckley
v. Gross (1863),
Moore
(1841), 4 Y. (h) Aylitfe, Pand.,
&
3 B.
&
S. 566,
per Blackburn,
J., at p.
575; Jones
C. (ex.) 351.
book
3, tit. 3, p.
291. _
Innkeepers stand on a different footing from ordinary bailees, and their responsibility amounts to an insurance of safety. See title Inns and (^)
Innkeepers. The reward need not be money, it may be (./) Story on Bailments, s. 442* money's worth, and there need not be a specitic reward for the custod}^ if there is a reward for services which in fact cover the custody. Pothier, Contrat de Louage,
s. 6 {mutatis mutandis). Great Western Rail. Co. (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 278 Cailiff v. Mitchell v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail Go Danvers (1792), Peake, 155 Thomas Day v. (1803), 4 Esp. 262. (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 256
(k)
[1)
Chapman
v.
deposit.
.
of
V.
of
custody distinguished
(i)
its features,
