172/3 Bro.  Trespass, pl, 67 in marg.; cf.  Ed. Liutpr. 131, cited supra, p. 166, n.

172/4 In one instance, where, against the opinion of Brian, the bailor was allowed to sue for damage to the chattel by a stranger, the action seems to have been case.  Y.B. 12 Ed. IV. 13, pl. 9; cf. the margin of the report.

173/1 Gordon v.  Harper, 7 T. R. 9; Lord v.  Price, L. IL 9 Ex. 54; Muggridge v.  Eveleth, 9 Met. 233.  Cf.  Clayton, 135, pl. 243.

173/2 Nicolls v.  Bastard, 2 C. M. & R. 659, 660; Manders v.  Williams, 4 Exch. 339, 343, 344; Morgan v.  Ide, 8 Cush. 420; Strong v.  Adams, 30 Vt. 221, 223; Little v.  Fosseft, 34 Me. 545.

173/3 2 Camp. 464; cf.  Mears v.  London & South-Western Railway Co., 11 C.B.  N.S. 849, 854.

173/4 Addison, Torts (4th ed.), 364.

174/1 Wms.  Pers.  Prop., 26 (5th ed.), 27 (7th ed.).

174/2 Booth v.  Wilson, I B. & Ald. 59; Y.B. 48 Ed. III. 20, pl. 8; 11 Hen.  IV. 17, pl. 39; 11 Hen.  IV. 23, 24, pl. 46 (Tre. “ou d’apprompter"); 21 Hen.  VII. 14b, pl. 23; Godbolt, 173, pl. 239; Sutton v.  Buck, 2 Taunt. 302, 309; Burton v.  Hughes, 2 Bing. 173; Nicolls v.  Bastard, 2 C. M. & R. 659, 660; Manders v.  Williams, 4 Exch. 339, 343, 344; 2 Wms.  Saund., note to Wilbraham v.  Snow; 2 Kent, 585, 568, 574; Moran v.  Portland S. P. Co., 35 Me. 55.  See, further, Lecture VI. ad fin.

175/1 Cf.  Lord v.  Price, L.R. 9 Ex. 54, 56, supra, p. 172.

175/2 Supra, p. 167.

175/3 Lib.  X. c. 13; cf.  I., c. 8.

175/4 “Is qui rem commodatam accepit, ad ipsam restituendam tenetur, vel ejus precium, si forte incendio, ruins, naufragio, ant latronum, vel hostium incursu, consumpta fuerit vel deperdita, substracts, vel ablata.”  Fol. 99 a, b.  This has been thought a corrupt text (Guterbock, Bracton, by Coxe, p. 175; 2 Twiss, Bract.  Int. xxviii.), but agrees with Glanvill, supra, and with Fleta, L. II. c. 56, Section 5.

175/5 Bract., fol. 62 b, c. 28, Section 2; Fleta, L. II. e. 59, Section 4, fol. 128.  Cf.  Just.  Inst. 3. 24, Section 5; ib. 15, Section 2.

176/1 Y.B. 8 Ed. II. 275; Fitz.  Detinue, pl. 59.

176/2 2 Ld.  Raym. 909.

176/3 Y.B. 13 Ed. IV. 9, pl. 5.  See Lecture VI.

176/4 29 Ass. 163, pl. 28.

176/5 Cf.  Ratcliff v.  Davis, Yelv. 178; Cro.  Jac. 244; Noy, 137; 1 Bulstr. 29.

176/6 Y.B. 33 Hen.  VI. 1, pl. 3.  This case is cited and largely relied on in Woodlife’s Case, infra; Southcote v.  Bennett, infra; Pickering v.  Barkley, Style, 132 (24 Car.  I., covenant on a charter-party); and Morse v.  Slue, infra; in short, in all the leading cases on bailment.

177/1 Cf.  Abbreviatio Plaeitorum, p. 343, col. 2, rot. 87, 17 Ed. II.

178/1 Y.B. 9 Ed. IV. 34, pl. 9; 2 Ed. IV. 15, pl. 7.  It is proper to add, that in the latter case Littleton does not seem to distinguish between servants and bailees.

178/2 Y.B. 9 Ed. IV, 40, pl. 22.  So Brian, in 20 Ed. IV. 11, pl. 10, ad fin.