(u) See McMahon v. Sloan, 12 Penn. St. 229.

(uu) Robinson v. Gardner, 18 Graft. 509.

(v) Lethbridge v. Phillips, 2 Stark. 644. It appeared in this case that a person of the name of Bernard, being desirous, for particular reasons of his own, that the defendant should see a picture belonging to the plaintiff, borrowed the picture of the plaintiff for the purpose of sending it to the defendant, and afterwards delivered it to a son of the defendant to be taken to the defendant's house. The defendant's son accordingly took it home, and the picture was, while at the defendant's, much damaged in consequence of having been placed on a mantelpiece near a stove. It appeared that the picture had been sent by Bernard to the defendant without any request on the part of the latter, and without any previous communication between them on the subject. Upon these facts, Abbott, C. J., was of opinion that the action could not be supported; that the defendant could not, without his knowledge and consent, be considered as a bailee of the property. In some instances, he said, it had happened, that property of much sation. (xx) And that a lending for his own purposes by a bailee without compensation, is a conversion. (xy) Perhaps the consent of the finder to take charge of it may be absolutely implied, when the property is forced into his care by extraordinary exigencies, as by fire or shipwreck, and is not at once renounced by him; and from his consent some obligation of care may be implied. We apprehend, however, that no finder is liable for a refusal to take the property into his hands; and has no lien on it or any claim for compensation unless for property derelict at sea, which would be governed by the law of Admiralty. If he has any claim whatever, it cannot go beyond the expense and labor necessary for the preservation of the property. It was decided in England, that the finder of lost property has a valid claim against all the world but the owner; and that the place in which it is found can create no exception to this general rule. (y) 1 In Massachusetts, it is held that the finder of a pocket-book left by the owner on a table in a shop, cannot hold it against the shop-keeper. (yy) The finder of a chose in action, as a note, check, or lottery-ticket, is not entitled to payment of the money due upon it; and one paying it with the knowledge that the holder came into possession by finding, would be held to pay the amount to the owner. (z)

He most consent; but the consent may be implied or inferred. A pledgee holding a pledge over after payment of the debt, is a depositary. One finding property need not take charge of it; if he chooses to do so he becomes a depositary, and is liable for loss from gross negligence. (w) It has been said that he may charge the owner for necessary expense and labor in the care of it. (x)

It has been held that one who negligently receives goods not directed to him, is as liable for default as a bailee with compengreater value than that in the present case had been left at gentlemen's houses by mistake, and in such cases the parties could not be considered as bailees of the property without their consent.

(w) "When a man doth find goods," says Lord Coke, "it hath been said, and so commonly held, that if he doth dispossess himself of them, by this he shall be discharged; but this is not so, as appears by 12 Edw. 4, 18, for he which finds goods is bound to answer him for them who hath the property; and if he deliver them over to any one, unless it be unto the right owner, he shall be charged for them; for at the first it is in his election whether he will take them or not into his custody; but when he hath them, one only hath then right unto them, and therefore he ought to keep them safely. A man, therefore, which finds goods, if he be wise, will then search out the right owner of them, and so deliver them unto him. If the owner comes unto him, and demands them, and he answers him that it is not known unto him whether he be the true owner of the goods or not, and for this cause he refuseth to deliver them; this refusal is no conversion, if he do keep them for him." Isaac v. Clark, 2 Bulst. 306, 812. The finder of property, for which a specific reward has been offered, has a lien upon it for the payment of the amount of the reward. Wentworth v. Day, 8 Met. 352. It is otherwise if the offer be merely of "a liberal reward." Wilson v. Guyton, 8 Gill, 218. - If a person finds property, which another has cast away and abandoned as entirely worthless, he may hold it against the original owner. McGoon v. Ankeny, 11 Ill. 668.

(x) So said in Story on Bailm. § 121 a, but it seems never to have been expressly adjudged. The case which comes nearest to it is that of Nicholson v. Chapman, 2 H. Bl. 264. In this case, a quantity of timber belonging to the plaintiff was placed in a dock on the bank of a navigable river, and being accidentally loosened, was carried by the tide to a considerable distance, and left at low water upon a towing-path. The defendant, finding it in that situation, voluntarily conveyed it to a place of safety, beyond the reach of the tide at high-water; and when the plaintiff afterwards sent to demand the timber to be restored to him, the defendant refused to restore it without payment for his trouble and expense. The plaintiff thereupon brought an action of trover; and the court held, that the defendant had no lien upon the timber, and that the action was maintainable. Lord Chief Justice Eyre, however, intimated, in the course of his judgment, that the defendant might recover for his trouble and expense in some form of action. After declaring that the common law gave the defendant no lien in such a case, and that this case could not be likened to a case of salvage, he said: "It is, therefore, a case of mere finding, and taking care of the thing found (I am willing to agree) for the owner. This is a good office and meritorious, at least in the moral sense of the word, and certainly entitles the party to some reasonable recompense from the bounty, if not from the justice of the owner; and of which, if it were refused, a court of justice would go as far as it could go towards enforcing the payment." The learned reporter, in a note to this passage, says: "It seems probable that in such a case, if any action could be maintained, it would be an action of assumpsit for work and labor, in which the court would imply a special instance and request, as well as a promise. On a quantum meruit, the reasonable extent of the recompense would come properly before the jury." See Baker v. Hoag, 8 Barb. 113; s. c. 7 id. 303. It might be found somewhat difficult, however, on technical grounds, to support such an action. See Bartholomew v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 28. See also vol. i p. • 448, note (u).