dealing with housebreaking followed by theft of property left in charge of the householder, lays down that the owner shall look to the bailee alone, and the bailee shall hold the thief both for the housebreaking and for the stolen goods.  Because, as it says, we cannot raise two claims out of one causa; somewhat as our law was unable to divide the severing a thing from the realty, and the conversion of it, into two different wrongs.  Compare, further, Jones, Bailm. 112; Exodus xxii. 10-12; LL.  Alfred, 28; I Thorpe, Anc.  L., p. 51; Gaii Inst., III.  Sections 202-207.

167/1 XXXI. 16.

168/1 “Peterit enim rem suam petere [civiliter] ut adiratam per testimonium proborum hominum, et sic consequi rem suam quamvia furatam. . .  Et non refert utrum res que ita subtracta fuit extiterit illius appellantis propria vel alterius, dum tamen de custodia sua.”  Bract., fol. 150 b, 151; Britton (Nich. ed.), I. 59, 60 [23 b], De Larcyns; cf. ib. 67 [26 b]; Fleta, fol. 5i, L. I. c. 38, Section 1.

169/1 Y.B. 21 & 22 Ed. I. 466-468, noticed in North Amer.  Rev., CXVIII. 421, n. (So Britton [26 b], “Si il puse averreer la perte.”) This is not trover.  The declaration in detinue per inventionem was called “un newfound Haliday” in Y.B. 33 Hen.  VI. 26, 27; cf. 7 Hen.  VI. 22, pl. 3; Isack v.  Clarke, I Rolle, R. 126, 128.

169/2 Y.B. 2 Ed. IV. 4, 5, pl. 9; 21 Hen.  VII. 39, pl. 49; Bro.  Trespass, pl. 216, 295.

169/3 2 Wms.  Saund. 47, n. 1.  See above, p. 167.

170/1 Notes to Saunders, Wilbraham v.  Snow, note (h).

170/2 Y.B. 11 Hen.  IV. 23, 24.  See, further, Y.B. 8 Ed. IV. 6, pl. 5; 9 Ed. IV. 34, pl. 9; 3 Hen.  VII. 4, pl. 16; 20 Hen.  VII. 1, pl. 1; 21 Hen.  VII. 14 b, pl. 23; 13 Co.  Rep. 69; 1 Roll.  Abr. 4(I), pl.  I; F. N. B. 86, n. a; supra, p. 167.

170/3 Fitz.  Abr.  Barre, pl. 130; Y.B. 9 Ed. IV. 34, pl. 9; 12 Am.  Law Rev. 694.

171/1 2 Steph.  Comm. (6th ed.), 83, cited Dicey, Parties, 353; 2 Bl.  Comm. 453; 2 Kent, 585.  As the bailee recovered the whole value of the goods, the old reason, that he was answerable over, has in some cases become a new rule, (seemingly based on a misunderstanding,) that the bailee is a trustee for the bailor as to the excess over his own damage.  Cf.  Lyle v.  Barker, 5 Binn. 457, 460; 7 Cowen, 68l, n.; White v.  Webb, 15 Conn. 302, 305; in the order cited. (Thence the new rule has been extended to insurance recovered by a bailee. 1 Hall, N. Y. 84, 91; 3 Kent’s Comm. (12th ed.), 371, 376, n. 1 (a).) In this form it ceases to be a reason for allowing the action.

171/2 Y.B. 48 Ed. III. 20, pl. 8; Bro.  Trespass, pl. 67.  Cf. 1 Britton (Nich. ed.), 67 [26 b]; Y.B. 6 Hen.  VI1. 12, pl. 9; 12 Ed. IV. 13, pl. 9; 12 Am.  Law Rev. 694.

172/1 Y.B. 22 Ed. IV. 5, pl. 16.

172/2 2 Rolle, Abr. 569, Trespass, 5.  Cf.  Y.B. 20 Hen.  VII. 5, pl. 15; 21 Hen.  VII. 39, pl. 49; Clayton, 135, pl. 243; 2 Wms.  Saund. 47 e (3d ed.).