1. 2 Blacks Com. 452. Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Dép t, No. 1.
2. Jones' Essay on the Law of Bailments, p.27, 1st edit. 1790.
3.Foster v. The Essex Bank, 17 Mass. Rep. 479, in which the doctrine of bailment was very ably and learnedly discussed.
4. Jones' Essay, p. 90-93. Lord Holt, in Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Lord Raym. 913.
5. Year Book, 8 Edw. II. Fitz. Abr. tit. Detinue, p1. 59. and cited by Lord Holt in 2 Lord Raym. 914, and in Jones on Bailment, p. 28.
6. Wood's Institutes of the Civil Law, 218.
7. Lord Holt, in Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Lord Raym. 915. Jones on Bailment, p. 34.
8. Lib. 3. c. 2. 99. b.
9. Inst. 3. 15. 3.
10. Co. Litt. 89. a. b. 4 Co. 83.
11. Jones on Bailment, 32, 33.
12. 2 Lord Raym. 909.
13.Contrat de Dép t, No. 27.
14. Ibid. No. 29.
15. Dig. 16. 3. 1. 35.
16. Pothier, ibid. n. 30, 31, 32. Jones on Bailment, 37, 38.
17.Garside v. The Proprietors of the Trent Navigation, 4 Term Rep. 581. Cailiff v. Danvers, Peake N. P. 114. Thomas v. Day, 4 Esp. N. P. 262.
18. 1 Esp. N. P. Rep. 315,
19. Essay on Bailment, p. 39.
20. Dig. 16. 3. 1. 36.
21.May v. Harvey, 13 East, 197. The Code Napoleon says, that the depositary must not give up the thing deposited, except to the order of him who deposited it; and if he who made the deposit dies, and there be several heirs, it must be yielded up to them each according to his share and portion; and if the thing deposited cannot be divided, the heirs must agree among themselves as to the receiving it. Art 1937, 1939. The Civil Code of Louisiana has adopted the same provisions; art. 2920, 2922, and both those codes leave the inference to be drawn, that if the thing be indivisible, it cannot safely be delivered to one of two or more claimants, without their joint agreement or consent.
22. Wood's Inst. of the Civil Law, 212. Jones on Bailment, 40. 93. Shiells v. Blackburne, 1 H. Blacks. 158.
23. 4 Johns. Rep. 84.
24.Elsee v. Gatward, 5 Terra Rep. 143.
25. 5 Term Rep. 143.
26. 1 H. Blacks. 158.
27. Booth v. Wilson, 1 Barn. & Ald. 59.
28. Jones on Bailment, 41. 48. 94.
29.Traité du Contrat de Mandat.
30. See Dig. 17. tit. 1. and Inst. 3 tit. 27, and Code 4 tit. 35. on the Contract of Mandalum.
31. Noy's Maxims, ch. 43. p. 91. Jones on Bailment, p. 49, 50.
32. Jones on Bailment, p. 49, 50. Pothier, Traité du Prêt à Usage, No. 49.
33.Traité du Prêt à Usage, No. 48, 49.
34. Ibid. No. 55, 66.
35. Ibid. No. 56.
36. Ibid. No. 56.
37. Ibid. No. 57.
38. Pothier, Traité du Prêt à Usage, No. 59.
39. Ibid. No. 60.
40. Dig. 13. 7. 9. 2.
41.Mores v. Conham, Owen, 123. Pothier, Contrat de Nantissement, 23, 35, 36. Civil code of Louisiana, art. 3135.
42. 2 Lord Raym. 916, 917.
43. Essay on Bailment, p. 33, 59, 60, 62, 63.
44. Co. Litt. 89. a. 4 Co. 83. b.
45. Bracton. 93. b.
46. Pothier, Contrat de Nantissement.
47. Ibid. n. 32, 36.
48.Contrat de Nantissement. No. 31.
49. 2 Caines' Cases in Error, 200.
50.Demandray v. Metcalf, Prec. in Ch. 419. Gilbert's Eq. Rep. 104. Kemp v. Westbrook, 1 Vesey, 278. Vanderzee v. Willis, 3 Bro. 21.
51. 1 P. Wm. 261. 1 Bro. P. C. 494.
52. 2 Atk. 303.
53.De Lisle v. Priestman, 1 Brown's Penn. Rep. 179.
54. Glanville, lib. 10. c. 6 and 8. Huber's Praelec tom. 3. 1072. s. 6. Perezius in Cod. tom. 2. 63. s. 8. Domat, vol. i, 362. s. 9, 10. Ersk. Inst. vol. 2. 455. Pothier, Contrat de Nantissement, No. 24.
55. Art. 2078.
56. Art. 3132.
57. Code 8. 34. 3. 1. See also Dig. 13. 7. 4.
58. Code 8. 35. 3. Hub tom. 3. 1038. s. 17. 1 Domat. 362. s. 11.
59.United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch, 73. Skirras v. Caig & Mitchell, 7 Cranch, 34. Hendricks v. Robinson, 2 Johns. Ch Rep. 309. Livingston v. McInlay, 16 Johnson, 165. Lyle v. Ducomb, 5 Binney, 585.
60.Gordon v. Graham, 7 Viner, 52. E. pl. 3.
61.Pettibone v. Griswold, 4 Conn. Rep. 158. Stoughton v. Pascq, 5 Conn. Rep. 442.
62.Demandray v. Metcalf, Prec. in Ch. 419. 2 Vern. 691.
63.Ex parte Ockenden, 1 Atk. 236. Jones v. Smith, 2 Vesey, jun. 372. Vanderzee v. Willis, 3 Bro. 21. But see Adams v. Claxton,6 Vesey, 226, where the authority of the two last cases is somewhat disturbed.
64. 15 Mass. Rep. 389.
65. Code, 8. 27. Heinecc. Elem. Jur. sec. ord. pand, p. 4. s. 46. and Hub. Praelec. lib. 20. tit. 6, s. 1. were referred to in support of the doctrine in the civil law, though there were other cases to show that good faith required a restoration of a deposit, upon payment of the specific debt only. Code 4. 31. 14. 4. 34. 11.
66.Hoare v. Parker, 2 Term Rep. 376.
67.Paterson v. Tash, 2 Str 1178. Daubigny v. Duval, 5 Term Rep. 604. McCombie v. Davies, 7 East. 5.
68.Flewellin v. Rave, 1 Bulst. 68. Booth v. Wilson, 1 Barn. & Ald. 59.
69. Jones on Bailment, 27. 90.
70. Essay on Bailment, p. 66-69.
71.Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Ald. 21.
72. Dig. 19. 2. 25. 7. Sir William Jones, in his Essay, p. 67 says, that the superlative diligentissimus was here improperly applied, and that it would be a case only of ordinary care. But Ferriere, in his Commentaries upon the Institutes, tom. 5. 138, thinks otherwise; and that Gaius was speaking of things that might easily be deteriorated, and would require the most exact diligence for their preservation. The case would depend upon circumstances. Gaius was speaking not of unhewn blocks of granite, but of columns, which implied, in the midst of the splendid architecture of Rome, productions of great labor and skill; and in such a case it would, no doubt, require the utmost attention, to avoid injury to the polished shaft or capital; and especially if that capital was finished in the Corinthian style, or surmounted by an entablature, adorned with all the beauty and elegance of the Grecian art.
73. 8 Co. 32.
74.Cross v. Andrews, Cro. E. 622.
75. 5 Term Rep. 273.
76. Dig. 4. 9. 1.
77. 1 Haywood's N. C. Rep. 40.
78. 14 Johns. Rep. 175.
79.Parkhurst v. Foster, 1 Salk. 387. Carth. 417, S. C.
80. 3 Barn. & Ald. 283.
81.Burgess v. Clements, 4 Maule & Selw. 306. Farnworth v. Packwood, 1 Ho1t's N. P. 209.
82. Act for regulating Inns and Taverns, Laws of N.Y. sess. 24. ch. 164.
83.Alger v. Weston, 14 Johns. Rep. 231.
84.Palmer v. Doney, 2 Johns. Cas. 346.
85. Dig. 19. 2. 31.
86. Jones on Bailment, 78, 79.
87. 19 Johns. Rep. 44.
88. Co. Litt. 89. a. 1 Rol. Abr. 2. c. pl. 5. Woodleife v. Curtis. Lord Holt in Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Lord Raym. 918. Lee, Ch. J in Dale v. Hall, 1 Wils. 231. Proprietors of the Trent Navigation v. Wood, 3 Esp. Rep. 127.
89.Gisbourn v. Hurst, 1 Salk. 249. Lawrence, J. in Harris v. Packwood, 3 Taunton, 264.
90.Jackson v. Rogers, 2 Shaw. 332. Lord Kenyon, and Ashhurst, J. in Elsee v. Gatwood, 5 Term Rep. 143. Holroyd, J. in 4 Barn. & Ald. 32.
91. 1 Vent. 190, 238. 2 Lev. 69.
92. Cases temp. Hardw. 183.
93. See Goff v. Clinkard, cited in 1 Wils. 282.
94.Dale v. Hall, 1 Wils. 281. Proprietors of the Trent Navigation v. Wood, 3 Esp. 127.
95.Kich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 338. Wardell v. Mourillyan, 2 Esp. N. P. Cas. 693.
96.Ross v. Johnson, 5 Burr. 2825.
97.Cavenagh v. Such, 1 Price's Exch. Rep. 328.
98.Aston v. Heaven, 2 Esp. N. P. 535. Christie v. Griggs, 2 Campb. 79.
99.Middleton v. Fowler, 1 Salk. 282. Upshare v. Aidee, Comyn's Rep. 25.
100. Chambre. J. in Robinson v. Dunmore, 2 Bos. & Pull. 416.
101.Clarke v. Grey, 6 East, 564.
102. 1 Term Rep. 27.
103. Jones on Bailment, 79-85. Lord Holt in Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Lord Raym. 909. Barclay v. Heygena, cited in 1 Term Rep. 33. Trent Navigation v. Wood, 3 Esp. N.P. Rep. 127. Hyde v. Trent and Mersey Company, 5 Term Rep. 389.
104.Elliott v. Duke of Norfolk, 4 Term Rep. 789. Alsept v. Evles, 2 H. Blacks. 108. The Code Napuleon, and the Civil Code of Louisiana have declared in the same words that carriers and watermen were subject to the like obligations and duties as tavern keepers, and that they were responsible for goods entrusted to them, against loss and damages by theft or otherwise, unless they could show, that the loss proceeded from force majeure, or uncontrollable events. Code Napoleon, art. 1929, 1953, 1954, 1782, 1784. Code Louis, art. 2722, 2725, 2910, 2939.
105.Tichburne v. White, 1 Str. 145.
106.Gibbon v. Paynton, 4 Burr. 2298. Clay v. Willan, 1H. Blacks. 298. Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Ald. 21.
107.Mouse's case, 12 Co. Smith v. Wright, 1 Caines' Rep. 43.
108.Packard v. Getman, 6 Cowen, 757, and see also Selway v. Holloway, 1 Lord Raym. 46. Cobban v. Downe, 5 Esp. Rep. 41.
109.Garside v. Trent and Mersey Navigation. 4 Term Rep. 581. Hyde v. The Trent and Mersey Navigation, 5 Term Rep. 389.
110.Golden v. Manning, 2 Wm. Blacks. Rep. 916.
111. 5 Term Rep. 389.
112.Smith v. Horne, 8 Taunton, 144. Bodenham v. Bennett, 4 Price, 31. Garnett v. Willan, 5 Barn. & Ald. 53. Duff v. Budd, 3 Brod. & Bing. 177.
113.Strong v. Natally, 4 Bos. & Pul. 16.
114. 15 Johnson's Rep. 39.
115.Wilson v. Dickson, 2 Barn. & Ald. 2.
116.Butler v. Heane, 2 Campb. 415. Cobden v. Bolton, ibid. 108. Gouger v. Jolly, Holt, 317. Mayhew v. Eames, 3 B. & Cresswell, 601.
117. Purrough, J., 8 Taunton, 146.
118. 5 East, 507.
119. 4 Price Exch. Rep. 31.
120. 5 Barn. & Ald. 53.
121.Ellis v. Turner, 8 Term Rep. 531. Beck v. Evans, 17 East, 247. Smith v. Horne, 8 Taunton, 144. Bickett v. Willan, 2 Barn. & Ald. 356. Batson v. Donovan, 4 Barn. & Ald. 21. Garnett v. Willan, 5 Barn. & Ald. 52. Sleat v. Fagg, 5 Barn. & Ald. 342.
122. See Smith v. Horne, 8 Taunton, 144.
123.Colt v. McMechan, 6 Johns. Rep. 160. Schieffelin v. Harvey, 6 Johns. Rep. 170. Elliott v. Russell, 10 Johns. Rep. 1. Kemp v. Coughtry, 11 Johns. Rep. 107.
124. 1 Bay's Rep. 99.
125. 4 Binney, 127.
126. 6 Cowen, 266.
127.Gordon v. Little, 8 Serg. & Rawle, 533.
128. I apprehend, with great deference, that the case of Aymar v. Astor, so far as it meant to decide that masters of vessels were not liable as common carriers, (and it appears to have meant that, and that only,) is not to be taken for sound law. A distinguished rule of commercial policy, which had been settled in England, and regarded as fundamental ever since the great case of Morse v. Slue, and, which had been recognized, and acted upon, and indicated, by the Supreme Court of this state, in the cases of Colt v. McMechan, Schieffelin v. Harvey, Watkinson v. Laughton, Elliott v. Russell, and Kemp v. Coughtry, cannot be thus suddenly demolished. If the court had placed the decision on the ground that the damage to the goods was occasioned by a peril of the sea, the rule would have been preserved, and the carrier would have been protected by the exception in his bill of lading. But the Court did not decide the cause on that point, nor could they, upon the facts stated, without overruling the English authority. They went upon the broad ground that masters of vessels were not common carriers, nor liable as such; and this appears to me to be overturning first principles, and rendering the law of the land vague and uncertain. No such judicial reformation of the law is thought of in England: and in relation to this very subject, a bill was introduced into parliament, and passed the House of Commons, since the year 1795, to reduce the liability of owners and masters of vessels navigating the high seas as common carriers, to the cases of robbery, embezzlement, and actual default of the owner, master, or mariners, but the bill was rejected in the House of Lords. Abbott on Shipping, part 3. ch. 4. s. 1. note c.
129. Christy's Dig. tit. Carrier, n. 5.
130. 1 Lord Raym. 646.
131. Cowp. 754.
132.Bowning v. Goodchild, 3 Wils .443.
133. 7 Cranch, 242.
