Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/768

 —

Bailment. as against the insurers, he is entitled to value (c). A custodian who recovers insurance money occupies the position of a trustee to the owner of the chattel covered by the insurance for its value, less his agreed or reasonable charges for warehousing and after demand by the owner and refusal by the custodian to account for the proceeds, an action will lie against him at the suit of the owner for money had and received (cl). interest

recover

in

its

it

that,

full



mo.

Frequently the obligations of the custodian in the ordinary course of business are varied and enhanced by the addition of a contract on his part to perform some act in connection with the chattel whereby its character is altered or improved (e). This additional undertaking raises a series of obligations between the owner of the chattel and the bailee which are collateral to the bare obligation of safe custody. In such cases a further undertaking on the part of the bailee will be implied to exercise capacity and fidelity in the conduct of the particular employment for which it was intrusted to him. For when a person undertakes for reward to perform any work, he must be considered as bound to use a degree of diligence adequate to the performance of it (/). In an action against

a custodian for negligence (g) a cannot, apart from special contract, recover damages beyond the actual value of the chattel lost. There is no implied undertaking on the part of a mere custodian to be answerable for and the simple deposit of chattels with consequential damages him in the ordinary course of business raises no such notice by implication as will render him liable to their owner for damages for loss of market or other similar contingencies (It). 1111.

plaintiff



Sub-Sect.

3.

Liability to Distress.

1112- Chattels received for custody by a person who does not carry on a business in which receiving such chattels is usual, are liable to be distrained for the rent of the premises on which they are stored, but chattels received in the course of a particular trade to be dealt with, wrought, or managed, in accordance with that trade the by a tenant of premises, are exempted from distress (i)

See also Ex (c) Waters v. Monarch Life Assurance Co. (1856), 5 El. & Bl. 870. But the chattels parte Bateman, Re Eoutledge (1856), 8 De G. M. & G. 263. destroyed must be covered by the terms of the policy {North British and Mercantile Insurance Co. v. Moffatt (1871), L. R. 7 C. P. 25). See, further, title Insuhance. (d) Sidaways v. Todd (1818), 2 Stark. 400. (e) As in Sevan v. Waters (1828), 3 C. & P. 520; Forth v. Simpson (1849), la Q. B. 680. (/) Jones on Bailments, 4th ed. pp. 98, 99. Such action is an action founded on tort within the meaning of the County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 43), s. 116 {Turner v. Stallibrass, [1898] 1 Q. B. 56). Compare {h) Anderson v. North Eastern Bail. Co. (1861), 4 L. T. 216. the liability of a common carrier who may be liable for loss of market or other consequential damage {Simpson v. London and North Western Bail. Co. (1876), I Q. B. D. 274) ; see title Carriers. {i) Swire v. Leach (1865), 18 C. B. (n. s.) 479. See also title Distress. (g)