"As to the second sort of bailment, viz., commo-datum, or lending gratis, the borrower is bound to the strictest care and diligence to keep the goods, so as to restore them back again to the lender; because the bailee has a benefit by the use of them, so as if the bailee be guilty of the least neglect he will be answerable: as if a man should lend another a horse to go westward, or for a month; if the bailee go northward, or keep the horse above a month, the bailee will be chargeable; because he has made use of the horse contrary to the trust he was lent to him under; and it may be if the horse had been used no otherwise than he was lent, that accident would not have befallen him. This is mentioned in Bracton, ubi supra: his words are: 'is autem cui res aliqua utenda datur, re obligatur, quae commodate est, sed magna differentia est inter mutuum et commodatum; quia is qui rem mutuam accepit, ipsam restituendam tenetur, vel ejus pretium, si forte incendio, ruina, naufragio, aut latronum vel hostium incursu, consumpta fuerit, vel deperdita, subtracta vel oblata. Et qui rem utendam accepit, non sufficit ad rei custodiam, quod talem dili-gentiam adhibeat, qualem suis rebus propriis adhi-bere solet, si alias cum diligentius potuit custodire; ad vim autem majorem, vel casus fortuitos non tenetur quis, nisi culpa sua intervenerit. Ut si rem sibi com-modatam domi, secum detulerit cum peregre projectus fuerit, et illam incursu hostium vel praedonum, vel naufragio, amiserit, non est dubium quin ad rei resti-tutionem teneatur.' I cite this author, though I confess he is an old one, because his opinion is reasonable, and very much to my present purpose, and there is no authority in the law to the contrary. But if the bailee put his horse in the stable, and he were stolen from thence, the bailee shall not be answerable for him. But if he or his servant leave the house or stable doors open, and the thieves take the opportunity of that and steal the horse, he will be chargeable, because the neglect gave the thieves the occasion to steal the horse. Bracton says, the bailee must use the utmost care; but yet he shall not be chargeable, where there is such a force as he cannot resist.

"As to the third sort of bailment, scilicet locatio, or lending for hire, in this case the bailee is also bound to take the utmost care, and to return the goods when the time of hiring is expired. And here again I must recur to my old author, fol. 62, b.: 'Qui pro usu vesti-mentorum auri vel argenti, vel alterius ornamenti, vel jumenti, mercedem dederit vel promiserit, talis ab eo desideratur custodia, qualem diligentissimus paterfamilias suis rebus adhibiet, quam si praestiterit et rem aliquo casu amiserit, ad rem restituendam non tenebitur. Nec sufficit aliquem talem diligentiam ad-hibere, qualem suis rebus propriis adhiberet, nisi talem adhibuerit, de qua superius dictum est. From whence it appears, that if the goods are let out for a reward, the hirer is bound to the utmost diligence, such as the most diligent father of a family uses; and if he uses that, he shall be discharged. But every man, how diligent soever he be, being liable to the accident of robbers, though a diligent man is not so liable as a careless man, the bailee shall not be answerable in this case, if the goods are stolen.

"As to the fourth sort of bailment, viz., vadium, or a pawn, in this I shall consider two things: first, what property the pawnee has in the pawn or pledge; and, secondly, for what neglects he shall make satisfaction. As to the first, he has a special property, for the pawn is a securing to the pawnee, that he shall be repaid his debt, and to compel the pawnor to pay him. But if the pawn be such as it will be the worse for using, the pawnee cannot use it, as clothes, etc., but if it be such as will never be the worse, as if jewels for the purpose were pawned to a lady, she might use them; but then she must do it at her peril; for whereas, if she keeps them locked up in her cabinet, if her cabinet shall be broke open, and the jewels taken from thence, she would be excused; if she wears them abroad, and is there robbed of them, she will be answerable. And the reason is because the pawn is in the nature of a deposit, and, as such, is not liable to be used. And to this effect is Ow. 123. But if the pawn be of such a nature, as the pawnee is at any charge about the thing pawned, to maintain it, as a horse, cow, etc., then the pawnee may use the horse in a reasonable manner, or milk the cow, etc., in recompense for the meat. As to the second point, Bracton, 99, b., gives you the answer: 'Creditor, qui pignus accepit, re obligatur, et ad Mam restituendam tenetur; et cum hujusmodi res in pignus data sit utnusque gratia, scilicet debitoris, quo magis ei pecunia creder-etur, et creditoris quo magis et in tuto sit creditum, sufficit ad ejus rei custodiam diligentiam exactam ad-hibere, quam si praestiterit, et rem casu amiserit, securus esse possit, nec impedietur creditum petered In effect, if a creditor takes a pawn, he is bound to restore it upon the payment of the debt; but yet it is sufficient, if the pawnee use true diligence, and he will be indemnified in so doing, and notwithstanding the loss, yet he shall restore to the pawnor for his debt. Agreeable to this is 29 Ass., 28, and Southcote's case is., But, indeed, the reason given in Southcote's case is, because the pawnee has a special property in the pawn. But that is not the reason of the case; and there is another reason given for it in the book of Assize, which is indeed the true reason of all these cases, that the law requires nothing extraordinary of the pawnee, but only that he shall use an ordinary care for restoring the goods. But, indeed, if the money for which the goods were pawned be tendered to the pawnee before they are lost, then the pawnee shall be answerable for them; because the pawnee, by detaining them after the tender of the money, is a wrong-doer, and it is a wrongful detainer of the goods, and the special property of the pawnee is determined. And a man that keeps goods by wrong, must be answerable for them at all events; for the detaining of them by him is the reason of the loss. Upon the same difference as the law is in the relation to pawns, it will be found to stand in relation to goods found.