— — Part
TV.
— Considerations Common to all Classes of Bailment. working or management either by the
of all interference with the
bailor or his agents
3.
4.
2.
Obligations as regards
Statute of Limitations.
1144. No action will lie against a bailee for a refusal to redeliver the chattel bailed to the bailor (l) until after a demand has been made by the bailor for its return (7?i). In order to succeed in such an action the bailor must prove that he is entitled to the delivery of the chattel, and that the bailee is wrongfully detaining In such cases the Statute of Limitations runs against the it {n). bailor from the date of the demand and refusal to redeliver, and not from the date of the conversion, even though the bailment was determined and a complete cause of action raised by a wrongful sale or other tortious act of the bailee committed more than six years before the date of the demand (o). Sect.
Sect.
Rights and
(/b).
Sect.
565
Third Persons. statute of Limitations.
Joint Bailors and Joint Bailees.
1145. Where chattels belonging to co-owners are delivered to a he is bound to redeliver them to any of the co-owners on demand (jj), unless it is a term in the contract that he shall deliver up possession only upon the demand of all the co-owners. In the latter case he is justified in refusing to redeliver the chattels on the demand of one or some of them only, and detinue will not lie against him for such a refusal {q). But, in such a case, if he delivers up the chattels to one of the co-owners upon his sole request, no action will lie against him for so doing, unless all the bailors join for that purpose and as the person to whom they were actually redelivered cannot join with his co-owners in maintaining an action for a breach occasioned by his own act, no action for detinue will lie against the bailee {r). As, however, the bailee would be a trustee of the chattels for all the co-owners, he would be held liable in equity to those who were injured by his breach of trust (s).
Joint bailors,
bailee,
1146. Where a chattel is bailed to two or more bailees, each is Joint responsible for the acts and defaults of his co-bailees done or made within the scope of their authority (t). Probably, however, he is not responsible if the act or default is not negligence in the performance of the contract, but something wholly outside it (u). (k)
Smith
V. Bailey,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 403
Nicholson
v.
Harrison (1856), 4
W.
R.
459. (l) Or, in the case of mutuum, their equivalent (Ee Tidd, [1893] 3 Ch. 154). (m) Cullen v. Barclaij (1881), L. R. 10 Ir. 224. (n) Gledstane v. Hewitt (1831), 1 Or. & J. 565, jper Bayley, B., at p. 570. (o) Wilkinson v. Verity (1871), L. E. 6 C. P. 206 ; Philpott v. Kelley (1835), 3 A. & E. 106. See title Limitation of Actions. ip) Broadbent v. Ledivard (1839), 11 A. & E. 209. (g) Atwood V. Ernest (1853), 13 C. B. 881; May v. Harvey (1811), 13 East,
197.
& B. 234. See also supra, per Lord Campbell, C.J., at p. 237. (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 422. 229 ; Coupe Co. v. Maddick, [1891] (^) Daveij v. Chamberlain (1803), 4 Esp. 2 B. 413, per Cave, J., at p. 415 ; Story on Bailments, s. 116. This would seem to follow upon principle (u) Story on Bailments, s. 116. from the analogous cases of a bailee's responsibility for his servants. See pp. 553, 564, ante.
Brandon v. Brandon v. Harper v. Godsell (r)
(s)
Scott (1857), 7 E. Scott,
bailees,
