(k) Harvey v, Epes, 12 Gratt. 163.

(l) See Esmay v. Fanning, 9 Barb. 176.

(m) See Hickok v. Buck, 22 Vt. 149, cited ante, p. * 127, n. (d).

(n) Roberts v. Wyatt, 2 Taunt. 268.

(o) Stanley v. Gaylord, 1 Cush. 636.

It is held, that if a hirer fastens hired chattels to real estate, in such a way that they cannot be removed without injury to the real property, a purchaser of the land, without notice, holds the chattels, and the owner of them must look to the hirer for compensation. (p)

The letter for hire acquires an absolute right to, and property in, the compensation due for the thing hired; and this compensation or price, where not fixed by the parties, must be a reasonable price, to be determined, like the time for which the thing is hired, by the nature and circumstances of the case. The contract of hire may be terminated by the expiration of the time for which the thing was hired, or by the act of either party within a reasonable time, if no time be fixed by the contract. Or by the agreement of both parties at any time. Or by operation of law, when the hirer becomes the owner of the thing hired. Or by the destruction of the thing hired.. If it perish without the fault of either party, before any use of it by the hirer, he has nothing to pay; if after some use, it may be doubted how far the aversion of the law to apportionment would prevent the owner from recovering pro tanto; probably, however, where the nature of the case admitted a distinct and just apportionment, it would be applied. (q) Either party being in fault would of course be answerable to the other. And the contract might provide for the contingency of the destruction of the property in any manner.

Goods are often hired in connection with real estate; as where one hires a house with the furniture therein, or a room with its furniture. But although the clauses respecting such hire of chattels may form a part of a contract concerning real estate, they are construed and governed by the principles of the law of personalty.

It sometimes happens that parties seek to give to other contracts the appearance of a contract to hire; or that they wish to make use of a contract to hire, for purposes usually accomplished by other means. Thus, suppose a person about to open a board(p) Fryatt v. The Sullivan Company, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 116; s. c. 7 id. 529.

(q) See Harrington v. Snyder, 3 Barb. 380. As to apportionment in cases of hired slaves, where the slave dies during the period of his service, see the following cases. George v. Elliott, 2 Hen. & ing-house, and needing furniture, and proposing to buy the same in whole or in part upon credit. The seller is willing to trust, if he can have the security of the property itself; but if he does this by sale and mortgage back, it must be recorded, and an equity of redemption attaches. To avoid this, he makes a lease of the furniture to the other party, say for one year, and the lease contains a provision that the lessee may buy the same by paying a certain price therefor, at certain times. The lessee * takes the property into his house, and a creditor without notice attaches it as his property. The question has sometimes arisen under these circumstances, whether this is not in law a sale with mortgage back; and whether the attempt of the parties to avoid the notice of record, with the permission of the original owner to let the proposed purchaser take open possession without giving any notice of his rights, does not lay him open to lose the property if a bona fide creditor of the hirer takes it by attachment. The question is one of mixed law and fact. We do not think that the law attaches to such a transaction an absolute presumption of fraud; and unless the circumstances are such that the jury can infer fraud from them, actual or constructive, the title of the original owner of the furniture would prevail. This question has arisen once or twice at nisi prius, but we do not know that it has been authoritatively decided by courts of law, sitting in banc.

M. 5; Williams v. Holcombe, 1 N. Car. Law Rep. 365; Bacot v. Parnell, 2 Bailey, 424; Redding v. Hall, 1 Bibb, 536; Harrison v. Murrell, 6 Monr. 369; Dudgeon v. Teass, 9 Mo. 867; Collins v. Woodruff, 4 Eng. (Ark.) 463.

Locatio operis faciendi. The cases in which the bailee is to do some work or bestow some care upon or about the thing bailed, may be conveniently divided into those where,

1. Mechanics are employed in the manufacture or repair of the article bailed to them.

2. Warehouse men or wharfingers are charged with the custody of the thing bailed.

3. Postmasters receive letters to be sent as directed.

4. Innkeepers receive guests and the goods of guests.

Where mechanics are employed to make up materials furnished, or to alter or repair a specific thing, the contract is one of mutual benefit, and only ordinary care is required. But this care may vary much in different cases. Common wood may be given to a carpenter to make a common box. A chronometer may be delivered to a watchmaker to be cleaned or repaired. A diamond may be given to a lapidary to be cut and polished. The care required in these cases is very different; but it is always ordinary care; that is, such care as a person of ordinary caution and capacity would take of that specific thing. So of the skill required. A person who receives a chronometer to repair, and undertakes the work, warrants that he possesses and will exert the care and the skill requisite to do that work properly, and to preserve the article safely. If, however, one chooses to employ, on a work requiring great and peculiar skill, one whom he has reason to know to be deficient in that skill, he can have no remedy for the want of it. (r)

The obligations of the workman are, to do the work in a proper manner, and at the time agreed on, or in a reasonable time if none be specified; to employ the materials furnished in the right way; and not only to guard against all ordinary hazards, but to use the best endeavors to protect the thing delivered to him against all peril or injury. And he should do the work himself, where, from the circumstances, it may be presumed that the personal ability or skill of the workman is contracted for.