example, lets out the naked hull, or the mere fabric of a vessel, upon the terms that the hirer is to man and equip her, and get her ready for sea, there is no implied warranty or undertaking on the part of the shipowner that the vessel is in any particular state and condition at the time of the making of the contract. But if he mans and provisions and equips the vessel himself, and holds her out as fit for immediate use, there is an implied warranty on his part that she is seaworthy and fit for use, and properly found and provided with stores and provisions, seamen and officers, and all things needful to the due prosecution of the voyage.(a) So if a man lets out the mere fabric of a coach or carriage upon the understanding that the hirer is to provide the horses, harness, servants, and equipments, and prepare the vehicle for use, there is no implied warranty or undertaking on his part that the chattel is in any particular state or condition at the time that he parts with the possession of it; but if he gets it ready for the road, he impliedly warrants the vehicle to be road-worthy and fit for the performance of the journey for which it is known to be required, and this implied warranty extends to the coachman, horses, and harness, and all the other necessary equipments for the journey. So if a man lets out furniture for immediate use, there is an implied warranty on his part that it is fit for use, and free from all defects inconsistent with the reasonable and beneficial enjoyment of it.(b) "If he lets out vessels for holding oil or wine, and furnishes to the hirer vessels that are not in good condition, he shall be responsible for the damage that may accrue, for he who lets out a thing for use ought to know whether it is fit for use, and to warrant the use for which he takes the hire." (c) If he lets out a horse bridled and saddled, and prepared for immediate use by an equestrian, he impliedly warrants the equipments to be road-worthy and fit for use, and the horse itself to be well shod, (d) and free from such vices. and defects as render it dangerous and unfit to ride. The implied warranty does not extend to such defects as merely render the use of a chattel less convenient, and do not deprive the bailee of the substantial enjoyment of it. Thus, if a horse hired for a journey is blind only of one eye, or only a little restive, or slightly weak in the legs, the implied warranty does not extend to these defects, because they are not inconsistent with the use of the animal for the purpose required; but if the horse is totally blind, or (a) Lyon v. Mells, 5 East, 437. (b) Ld. Abinger, Sutton v. Temple, 12 M. & W. 60. (e) Domat. 1. 1, tit. 4, s. 3, 8. Si quis dolia vitiosa ignarus locaverit : deinde vinum effluxerit, A A A so restive and unsound that he cannot be ridden with safety, then the latter is responsible for a breach of the implied warranty. When the owner merely grants the use of the chattel, retaining the possession of it through the medium of his own servants and agents, he is bound to keep the chattel in good order and repair; but if the possession of the thing as well as the use of it is transferred to the hirer, this duty falls in the first instance upon the latter. If a coach-proprietor, for example, lets his coach and horses for a journey, and the coach is driven by the coachman, and is under the direction and management of the servants of the owner, the latter is bound to keep the horses properly shod, and the carriage in good travelling order; but if the possession thereof is transferred to the hirer, and the carriage is driven and managed by his servants, this duty then falls upon the latter, although the owner or lessor of the chattel may, under certain circumstances, be obliged, as we shall presently see, to repay to the hirer the money expended by him in repairs.(e) So if a ship is let for hire to sail on a certain voyage, and the ship remains in charge of the captain and crew and servants of the shipowner, the latter is bound to do all such repairs as may be necessary to keep her in good sailing order, and secure to the hirer that use and enjoyment of the vessel for which the hire was agreed to be paid; but if the mere fabric of the ship is let, and the possession as well as the use of the vessel is transferred to the hirer, so that the latter becomes the bailee of the ship, and puts his own captain and servants on board, and navigates the vessel himself, then he is himself bound to keep her in good sailing condition, and so deliver her up at the expiration of the term of hiring. The letter of a chattel is by the Roman and Continental law bound to pay to the hirer all extraordinary expenses which have been necessarily incurred by him, without any neglect or default on his part for the sustentation and preservation of the thing let to hire. Thus if a horse hired for a journey, and delivered into the charge and possession of the hirer, was taken sick on the road without any fault or neglect on his part, the expense of the cure, and of the nourishment of the horse during the continuance of the malady, fell upon the owner. So if a loom or a carriage let to hire was injured by some inevitable accident, and required extensive repairs for its preservation, the hirer might repair the chattel and charge the expense thereof on the owner. It is difficult to say, as it has not been made the subject of judicial decision, whether the liability of the owner for repairs (e) Pothier, (Louage,) No. 117, 129. done to a chattel let for hire, would be carried in the common law to the extent that it has been carried in the Roman and Continental law. It may be laid down, however, it is apprehended, as a general rule, that whenever a chattel bailed or delivered to a hirer to be used for hire, has sustained a partial injury through an inherent defect in the article itself, or by reason of some inevitable accident, which threatens its total and immediate destruction, and the effects of such partial injury may be obviated and the chattel preserved for future use by repairs and remedies promptly provided, there is an implied authority from the owner to the hirer to undertake the necessary repairs and apply the remedies, and incur all such expenses as a prudent man would, under the circumstances, incur for the preservation of his own property, and the money so expended would be money paid by the hirer for the use of the owner at his (implied) request, for the recovery of which the hirer might maintain the common form of action for money paid. (Ante, 226-231.) In order to establish a claim for the payment of expenses of this description in the Scottish law, it is necessary, observes Mr. Bell, to show in the first place that the occasion of the expense was not ascribable to the hirer; secondly, that the expense was indispensably necessary; and, thirdly, that the letter had notice of it as soon as circumstances permitted. (ƒ) GENERAL DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE HIRER.—The general duties and responsibilities of the hirer of a chattel are the same as those of the hirer of realty. Thus the bailee for hire of a ship, a horse, or a carriage, a musical instrument, or a clock, is bound in common with the hirer of a house or a mill, a plantation or an orchard, to use the thing let in a proper and reasonable manner, to take the same care of it that a prudent and cautious man ordinarily takes of his own property, and to return it to the bailor or owner at the time appointed for its return, or within a reasonable period after request, if no such time has been agreed upon, in as good condition as it was in at the time of the bailment, subject only to the deterioration produced by ordinary wear and tear and reasonable use; (g) and injuries caused by accidents which have happened without any fault or neglect on the part of the hirer. (h) The owner must stand to all the ordinary risks to which the chattel is naturally liable, but not to risks occasioned by negligence or want of ordinary caution on the part of the hirer. If a carriage, for example, let to hire, breaks down on the ordinary public thoroughfare, through the badness of the road, or is injured by a flood or inundation, the owner must bear the loss, although the carriage was driven by the servant and horses of the hirer. But if the hirer had gone out of his way to meet the danger-if he had travelled by unusual and difficult roads, or crossed a plain subject to floods, when he might have kept the high ground and been safe, he must make good the loss that has been occasioned thereby. If the owner sends his own postilion or coachman to drive the carriage, the hirer is discharged from all attention to the horses and the risks of the road, and is bound only to take ordinary care of the glasses and inside of the carriage whilst he sits in it, (i) unless he officiously interferes and gives orders, and takes the management and direction of the vehicle into his own hands. Of the use of the thing let.—It is also the duty of the hirer not to apply the thing to any other use than that for which it is hired. Thus if a horse is hired as a saddle-horse, the hirer has no right to use it in a cart, or to carry loads, or as a beast of burden. So if it is hired to go to Richmond he has no right to go with it on a journey to York; and if during such misuser a loss occurs, the hirer will be responsible therefor. If a ship hired or chartered for a particular voyage, and placed in the possession and under the control of the charterer, be captured by pirates, or be lost in a storm in the ordinary course of the voyage, the owner must bear the loss; but if the charterer has deviated from the ordinary course, and sailed unnecessarily through dangerous channels, or into seas infested with pirates, and needlessly encountered risks not contemplated by the owner at the time of the making of the charter-party, and which would probably not have been run by him except for a greatly increased rate of remuneration, the charterer is liable for the loss. (k) If a horse hired for a journey falls on the road, and is lamed, (7) or is injured or destroyed by an accidental fire, or is stolen from a stable in which it has been placed, the owner must bear the loss. But if the hirer by riding immoderately, or at unseasonable hours, and travelling by dangerous and unusual roads, or by leaving the horse by the road side when he might have put it into a stable under lock and key, has imprudently courted danger and invited robbery, he must himself bear the (2) Pothier Louage, No. 106. Jones, Bailm. 88, 89. (k) Lewin v. East India Company, Peake, 320. (1) Cooper v. Barton, 3 Campb. 5, n. loss, and make full compensation to the owner. (m) If the horse is taken ill on the journey, and the hirer calls in a farrier, he will not be responsible if the horse dies, although the death may have been occasioned by the injudicious treatment of the latter; but if the hirer neglects to avail himself of proper advice and assistance, or chooses ignorantly to prescribe himself, and from unskilfulness gives the horse improper medicine, and the horse dies, he is liable to the owner for the loss. (n) It is of course the primary duty of the hirer, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, to supply an animal hired by him with suitable food, during the time it is intrusted to him for use; (o) and if a hired horse is exhausted, or becomes ill and refuses its feed, and the hirer notwithstanding pursues his journey, and by so doing injures or kills the horse, he will be responsible therefor to the owner. (p) Loans at interest.—Money may be made the subject of a contract of hiring and letting as well as houses and lands, and ordinary chattels. A loan of money to be used for hire, is a loan for use and consumption, the identical thing lent not being intended to be returned, but its equivalent in value and kind. (Post. ch. 25, s. 3.) The absolute property, therefore, in the subject matter of the loan, passes together with the transfer of the possession to the hirer or borrower, and the latter becomes indebted to the lender in an equivalent in value and amount, which must be paid and rendered to the latter at the time agreed upon, or within a reasonable period after demand made, in case no time for its return has been limited. The liability of the hirer or borrower consequently to repay the equivalent amount is not discharged by loss of the money from robbery, fire, or inevitable accident. Thus, if I deliver to a man five hundred sovereigns to be used for hire, and he is robbed on his way home, or the money is destroyed by an accidental fire in the house where he lodged, he must nevertheless pay me the amount at the time appointed. (Post, ch. 25, s. 3.) (m) Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Raym. 909, 916. (n) Dean v. Keate, 3 Campb. 4. (0) Handford v. Palmer, 5 Moore, 74, 79; 2 B. & B. 359, s. c. (p) Bray v. Mayne, 1 Gow. N. P. C. 1. |