148. "Bailment", "ballot", and "bailee" defined. A "bailment" is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the "ballot." The person to whom they are delivered is called the "ballet."

Explanation.---If a person already in possession of the goods of another contracts to hold them as a bailee, he thereby becomes the bailee, and the owner becomes the bailor, of such goods although they may not have been delivered by way of bailment.

Nature of the transaction.---"Bailment" is a technical term of the Common Law, though etymologically it might mean any kind of handing over (Fr. bailler). It involves change of possession. One who has custody without possession, like a servant, or a guest using his host's goods, is not a bailee. But constructive delivery will create the relation of bailor and bailee as well as actual, as stated in the Explanation.

The bailee's duly to deal with the goods according to the bailor's orders is incidental to the contract of bailment, and arises on the delivery of the goods, although those orders may have already been given and accepted in such a manner as to constitute a prior special contract. As a matter of pleading this is no longer material in this country, but it might still be material with regard to the period of limitation.

Bailment is necessarily dealt with by the Contract Act only so far as it is a kind of contract. It is not to be assumed that without an enforceable contract there cannot in any case be a bailment.

The words. "otherwise disposed of" in the present section express the common law as now understood. "It seems clear that a bailee is not the less a bailee because he is clothed with authority to sell the thing which is bailed to him," e.g., a factor for sale. On the whole a bailment may be described as a delivery on condition, to which the law usually attaches an obligation to redeliver the goods, or otherwise deal with them as directed, when the condition is satisfied; but there may be, in particular cases, a bailment without an enforceable obligation.

Where a chattel is delivered by mistake, the intention being to deliver another chattel either with or without conditions, the legal result, whatever it may be, is not a bailment; for there is no intention at all to deliver the chattel which is in fact delivered, and no contract with respect to it. In the converse case of a mistake on the part of the bailee, a bench of the Madras High Court has held that the same principles apply.

No bailment where whole property transferred.---Obviously no transaction can be a bailment within the Act which does not satisfy the terms of this section. Accordingly there is not a bailment if the thing delivered is not to be specifically returned or accounted for: and so is the Common Law.

A delivery of property on a contract for an equivalent in money or in other commodities (whether like the property delivered or not) is a sale or exchange and not a bailment, as where farmers deliver grain to a miller to be used by him in his trade, and are entitled to claim an equal quantity of corn of like quality or its market price.

An agent authorised to receive payment, and bound to hand over to his principal an equivalent sum, but not necessarily the actual coin or instruments of credit received by him, is not a bailee.

Similarly the delivery of Government promissory notes to a treasury for cancellation and consolidation into a single note is not a bailment, for there is no contract in such a case that the notes shall be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the owner.

Again the relation between a indigenous banker and the person depositing money with him in the ordinary way of business is that of borrower and lender, and the money so lodged can be recovered only as "money lent" under art. 59 of the Limitation Act, and not as "money deposited" under an agreement that it shall be "payable on demand" under art. 60. In the former case the period of limitation runs from the date of the loan, and in the latter from the date of demand. "The mere use of the term 'deposit' cannot alter the substance of the transaction". It is in each Case a question of fact whether a transaction amounts to a mere loan or a deposit under art. 60.

Rights and duties of bailee---What are. The bailee has no right to dispose of or sell the property unless specifically authorised to do so. He has only a right to retain the goods bailed with him until he receives due remuneration for the service rendered in respect of the goods. He is responsible for the safe delivery of the goods bailed with him and in default is responsible to the bailor for any loss of the goods.

Goods given to a person by bank on trust receipt---Person becomes a bailee---Liable for criminal breach of trust in case of non-accounting of goods. The execution of a trust receipt is a recognised mode of making a person bailee of the goods and in such circumstances the Bank must be deemed to be in possession or control of the goods. The validity and efficacy of such instruments of trust are now generally acknowledged. If a person who has signed such a trust receipt, fails to hand over to the Bank the sale-proceeds of the goods sold, the former would be liable for criminal breach of trust.

Intentional wrong delivery by carrier---Carrier liable for damages.---Where the carrier has made intentional wrongful delivery of goods, he cannot escape liability to indemnify the plaintiff for the loss caused to him by wrongful deliveries of the consignments.

Delivery of goods---Goods delivered into custody of Port Trust---Delivery order issued to Clearing Agent for taking delivery of goods---Clearing Agent found goods lying in damaged condition---Goods found short per Surety Report---Such survey taking-place after 20 days of arrival of goods at port---Condition of goods at time of survey was not necessarily condition of goods at time of discharge---Goods, held, were discharged and delivered to port trust in sound condition.

Entrustment of money for purchase of property---Plaintiffs alleging entrustment of Rs. 200,000 to defendant for investment in business and for purchase of property in dispute---Plaintiffs and main defendant having business relations for long time and having running business dealings---Held, mere allegations in plaint of having deposit money in trust or mutual trust of parties does not create any trust---Party to show creation of trust must prove that money paid in confidence on express condition for specific purpose in trust---Held further, if such payment made money vests in payee for benefit of payer.

149. Delivery to bailee how made.---The delivery to the bailee may be made by doing anything which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the intended bailee or of any person authorised to hold them on his behalf.

The bailor's part need not be very active. Mere assent, for example, of a guest at a place of public entertainment to a servant’s officious assumption of custody may be sufficient evidence of delivery to make the proprietor of the house a bailees and responsible for loss. The railway authorities were held liable as bailees where cotton was stacked on a station platform, with the consent of the station-master, no wagon being available, and was set on fire three days later by a spark from a passing train. Having regard to the course of dealing of a railway company, the mere fact that loading clerk in the employ of a railway company filled up a forwarding note and market a number on it has been held not to amount to delivery of goods to the company within the meaning of this section. It was further necessary that a number corresponding to the number of the forwarding note should be marked on the goods by a railway official. A lady employed a goldsmith for the purpose of melting old jewellery and making new jewels. Every evening she used to receive the half-made jewels from the goldsmith and put them into a box which was left in a room in the goldsmith’s house, of which she retained the key. It was held that there was a redelivery of the jewels to the lady and that they were not in the possession of the goldsmith when during one night they were stolen.

150. Bailor's duty to disclose faults in goods bailed.---The bailer is bound to disclose to the bailee faults in the goods bailed, of which the bailer is aware, and which materially interfere with the use of them, or expose the bailee to extraordinary risks; and if he does not make such disclosure, he is responsible for damage arising to the bailee directly from such faults.

If the goods are bailed for hire, the bailor is responsible for such damage, whether he was or was not aware of the existence of such faults in the goods bailed.

(a) A lends a horse, which he knows to be vicious, to B. He does not disclose the fact that the horse is vicious. The horse runs away. B is thrown and injured. A is responsible to B for damage sustained.

(b) A hires a carriage of B. The carriage is unsafe, though B is not aware of it, and A is injured. B is responsible to A for the injury.

There is no doubt that such is the Common Law, though there is not much positive authority. The rule of Roman Law is that if a man knowingly lends his neighbour foul or leaky vessels, whereby the wine or oil put into them perishes or is lost, he is liable for the damage.

A person who delivers to a carrier goods which he knows to be of a dangerous character, such as explosives, and to require extraordinary care in handling, and omits to give warning of it (the nature of the goods not being apparent), is liable for any resulting damage. There is an implied warranty that the goods are not dangerous, so that the consignor is liable, whether or not he knows the goods are dangerous, for any resulting damage. If the goods of a third party are damaged through a breach of this warranty the carrier can recover from the consignor the amount of the damage whether or not the carrier is liable over to the third party.

The language of the second paragraph of the present section is open to at least there constructions:

(i) The bailer is under a duly to take reasonable care to make the goods reasonably safe for the purpose for which he knows they have been hired.

(ii) The bailor is under a duty to supply goods that are reasonably safe, the only defence being that the defect is a latent one that could not be discovered by any care or skill.

(iii) There is an absolute guarantee of fitness.

In the common law, there is some authority for each of these views, but little to support view.

With regard to illustration (b) there is some doubt whether the rule would apply to the case where A hires of B a specific carriage, not a carriage to be provided by B at his discretion. But the decisions upon the hiring of particular kinds of property turn rather on questions of implied warranty, or unexpressed terms of the contract, and must be used with great caution for the establishment of any general rules.

It does not seem, at all events, that the quite positive language of the second paragraph of the present section would be qualified in India by any such exception.

151. Care to be taken by bailee. In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed.

This section abolishes the distinctions in the amount of care required of various kinds of bailees which were established, or supposed to be established. The Privy Council has laid down the duty of a bailee for reward in English law as being to exercise the same degree of care towards the preservation of the goods entrusted to him from injury which might reasonably be expected from a skilled storekeeper, acquainted with the risk to be apprehended either from the character of the storehouse itself or of its locality. It has, however, sometimes been held that there is liability only for gross negligence, or for failure to show such skill as the profession of the bailor implies. It is clearly not sufficient for a gratuitous bailee to show the same care as he bestowes upon his own goods. This is an objective standard similar to that of reasonable care, and was applied in A.I.R. 1955 V.P. 30. When goods are destroyed by a riotous mob, the bailee is not responsible for the loss.

A special and higher responsibility, not being part of the ordinary law of bailment at all, was imposed by the law of England upon common carriers and innkeepers. How far this remains unaffected by the Contract Act must be separately considered.

Common carriers.---The provisions of Ss. 151 and 152 of the Contract Act embody in effect the Common Law rule as to the liability of bailees other than common carriers and innkeepers. The measure of care required of these bailees in respect of goods entrusted to them was the same as a man of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods; in other. words, the liability was one for negligence only, in the absence of special contract Common carriers and innkeepers, on the other hand, were liable as insurers of goods; that is they were responsible for every injury to the goods occasioned by any means whatever, except only the act of God and the enemies. Therefore the mere proof of delivery of goods and injury thereto, unless caused by the act of God or the enemies, was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to compensation without proof of negligence on the part of the defendant. The question whether the liability of common carriers was still further reduced by the enactment of Ss. 151 and 152 of the Contract Act, so as to render them liable for negligence only as in the case of other bailees, came up before the High Court of Bombay in 1878. The Court held that the definition of "bailment" in S. 148 was large enough to include bailment for carriage, and that the provisions of those sections, therefore, applied to common carriers. The High Court of Calcutta, on the other hand, held in a subsequent case that the liability of common carriers was hot affected by the Contract Act. The same point arose before the Privy Council in an appeal from the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon, where it was held, approving the Calcutta decision, that the duties and liabilities of a common carrier are governed by the principles of the English Common Law in conjunction with the provisions of the Carriers Act, and that, notwithstanding some general expressions in the chapter on Bailments, the responsibility of a common carrier is not within the Contract Act.

Where the parties have expressly contracted to be bound by the provisions of the Carriage of Goods Act, 1925, the rights of the parties are governed by the terms of that Act. It may well be that in the absence of any contrary intention, a shipowner carrying goods from one port to another can be presumed to contract with reference to the Contract Act; but it by no means follows that the presumption is the same if the goods are to be carried to London or New York.

Carriers by Railway.---The liability of carriers by railway is now governed by the Railways Act, 1890. S. 72 of that Act provides that the responsibility of a railway administration for injury to goods delivered to it to be carried by railway is, subject to the other provisions of the Act, that of a bailee under Ss. 151, 152 and 161 of the Contract Act, and that it shall not be affected by the Carriers Act, but that it may be limited by a special agreement between the parties, provided that it is in writing by or on behalf of the person sending the goods and is otherwise in a form approved by the Governor-General in Council. Several railway companies accordingly issued what is called "the risk note" in a form approved by the Govt., which is used when the sender elects to despatch at a "special reduced" or "owner's risk" rate articles for which an alternative "ordinary" or "railway risk" rate is quoted in the tariff. The "risk note" provides that, in consideration of the railway company carrying the goods at a special reduced rate, they shall be exempted by the sender from liability for loss or damage to the goods from any cause whatever before, during, or after transit over the railway or other railways working in connection therewith. Such a note signed by the sender constitutes a special contract within the meaning of S. 72, and a railway company cannot, therefore, be rendered liable on such a note, whatever may be the cause of injury to the goods. Where, however, there was no contract to the contrary, it was held that a passenger whose luggage deposited in the cloak-room was lost was entitled to the entire value of the goods, but not to any consequential damages.

Innkeeper.---It has been held by the High Court of Allahabad that the liability of a guest in respect of goods belonging to a hotel-keeper and used by the guest is that of a bailee under Ss. 151 and 152 of this Act, so that the guest is not responsible for the loss, destruction, or deterioration of the furniture in his use if he has taken as much care of it as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of similar furniture of his own.

Burden of Proof---In cases governed by the provisions of Ss. 151 and 152, the loss or damage of goods entrusted to a bailee is prima facie evidence of negligence, and the burden of proof, therefore, to disprove negligence lies on the bailee. The same rule applies, by reason of S. 72 of the Railways Act, to a railway administration, unless the goods are consigned under a risk note under which the railway company are absolved from all liability for loss or damage except that due to willful negligence on the part of their servants, in which case the, burden lies in the first instance upon the company to prove that the loss was such as was contemplated by the contract, and when this has been done it shifts to the plaintiff to show that the loss was due to the willful neglect of the company or its servants. A railway company receiving goods for carriage is not bound to inquire into the apparent owner's title or to see that the risk-note is read and understood by the person who delivers the goods. As regard goods delivered to a common carrier, he is liable even if there be no negligence on his part except in certain cases mentioned above (see note "common carriers," above). Under S. 6, however, of the Carriers Act he may by special contract limit his liability, but even then the burden lies on him, by reason of S. 9 of the Act, to disprove negligence.

As regards bailments for hire, the rule is that if the damage caused were such that in the ordinary course of events it would not happen to goods of the kind in question if used with ordinary prudence. Thus where a person hires a horse for riding in a sound condition and the horse dies the same day while it is in his custody, it is for the hirer to prove that he had taken such care of the horse as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, have taken of his own. Similarly, where goods delivered for safe custody for reward are lost while in the possession of the bailee, the burden lies on the bailee to prove absence of negligence on his part. But where hotel furniture used by a guest while suffering from an infectious disease is destroyed by the hotel-keeper to prevent infection, it lies on the hotel-keeper, if he claims damages for the loss thereof, to prove that the guest did not take as such care of the goods as a person of ordinary prudence would have taken of his own goods under similar circumstances.

Contract by bailee exempting himself from liability for negligence.---The learned authors considered that a contract by a bailee purporting to exempt himself wholly from liability for negligence was not valid. This opinion is based on the express provisions for contracting out in S. 152, and in fact throughout the Chapter on Bailments wherever a rule of law is to operate only in the absence of a contract to the contrary, it is expressly so stated in the section (see sections 163, 165, 170, 171, and 174).

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1923), Sched., Art. 1 (c)---Carriage of goods by sea---Cargo carried on deck and at consignor’s risk short landing at destination---Liability for loss---Liability of carriers not governed by Ss. 151 & 152, Contract Act, 1872---Word "goods" in Art. 1 (e) of Sched. to Carriage of Goods by Sea Act---Connotation---Cargo not governed by provisions of said Act---Negligence alleged by substitute of consignor denied by carrier in written statement---Carrier bringing evidence to show that goods were damaged due to act of God---Contention that provisions of Ss. 151 & 152. Contract Act were applicable in instant case not tenable.

Care to be taken by bailee----Theft of goods pledged with Bank---Document of pledge containing condition that during the continuance of pledge agreement the borrowers shall be responsible for all loss, damage, or deterioration of security caused by theft, fire, rain or any other cause whatsoever---There being. no discrepancy between provisions of S. 151, Contract Act, 1872 and condition of document of pledge, if loss had been caused by theft, fire, rain or any other cause, it would be the duty of the bailee to explain that he had taken care of the goods as a man of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of his own goods and if in spite of that the goods pledged were lost in manner as recorded in the condition of document of pledge, liability of borrower could not be legally or equitably denied.

Goods carried at risk of carrier---Carrier not proving due diligence in carrying goods---Carrier liable for loss. Where jute was carried at the risk of the railway and it caught fire when a porter went to seal the door with a lamp, which showed negligence of the Railway. Moreover the carrier failed to prove its diligence in dealing With the jute in question throughout the period it was in its care and custody. The Railway was held liable for the loss suffered by the consignor.

Injury to goods in transit by Railway---Onus of proof as to negligence by carrier---How burden is to be discharged.---Where due to long delay in transit, goods carried by Railway were damaged. Held: Although the burden of establishing want of care on the pari of' the Railway lies on the consignor yet it is the duty of the railway to supply the entire material from which the amount of care that is taken is ascertained. The Railway pleaded that the delay was caused due to unavoidable circumstances but no material was supplied in support of this plea; Therefore the presumption of want of due Care would arise against the Railway.

Loss to goods by negligence of ship-owner---Claim for damages against shipowner sustainable.---Held: The shipowner committed a breach of the obligation contained in the bill of lading and as such the consignee was entitled to recover damages.

Damage to contents of parcel---Burden of proof is on consignor--Mere damage to containers does not prove damage to contents.---The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the damage to the contents was caused by the negligence of the servants of the Carrier while the Crates were in its custody. No such evidence has been produced by the plaintiff and merely, because some of the wooden crates were externally broken and some card-board cases torn, as stated in the Survey Report, it cannot be inferred, nor is there any evidence to show, that the external damage must have resulted in damage to the contents.

Loss of goods in possession of bailee---Onus of proof as to negligence of bailee.---Where goods are lost or destroyed while in .possession of bailee the onus of placing all the materials in his possession or knowledge is on the bailee, while the onus of establishing negligence is on the plaintiff.

Negligence of bailee---No evidence to show negligence---Bailee not required to prove precautionary measures taken against loss by fire, etc.---Held: The plaintiff has not suggested what were the steps which the Karachi Port Trust ought to have taken which it had failed to take, before an adverse inference of negligence can be drawn against them. It is not disputed that the cause of the fire was not known. Therefore, it was not incumbent on the K.P.T. to show that the fire originated from causes beyond its control. In the circumstances, it was enough for the Karachi Port Trust to place before the Court all the materials in its possession and to satisfy the Court that it had taken due care generally of the goods entrusted to its custody as statutory bailee and that it had taken all prompt and reasonable steps in its power to put out the fire and save whatever was possible of the goods. I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving negligence on the part of the Karachi Port Trust.

Carriage of goods by sea from foreign port to Pakistan---Damage to goods---Contract Act applies.---The provisions of the rules to the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 do not apply in relation to carriage of goods by sea in a ship carrying goods from a foreign port to a port in Pakistan, as is the present case. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of the parties have to be ascertained by reference to the proper law of the contract which in this case, is the Pakistan law.

Damaged goods not surveyed---Nothing to show quantum of damage---Vague estimate of damage---Damages not awarded. Held: The consignee did not apply for a survey of the damaged goods nor is there any evidence in the survey whether the dirt stains penetrated beyond the outer cover of the rolls and damaged the carpets inside. The value of the alleged damage is also not indicated in the survey report. It would, therefore, appear that the estimate of Rs. 4,675 claimed by the plaintiff as representating 5% damage to the 55 rolls of carpets can but be only a vague estimate. In this absence of material evidence as to value of damaged goods, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be accepted.

Damage to goods noticed by M.D. of plaintiff--Delay in making request for appointment of surveyor---Carrier not bound by Survey report in absence of notice and survey.--- Held: The Managing Director of the plaintiff, in his deposition in Court admitted that he noticed the alleged damage at the time of the discharge of the goods on 6-8-1965, by which time the goods had been removed by the K.P.T. from Transit Shed to another warehouse, some four or five furlongs away. The first intimation of the particulars of the alleged damage was conveyed to the Carrier's Agent on 7-6-1966 just before the suit was filed, by the plaintiff's legal notice claiming an estimated loss of Rs. 1,28,385/-. In the absence of notice of survey, the carrier is not bound by the Survey Report. Therefore the carrier is not liable to pay damages.

Buyer rejecting goods---If can sell them to recover ware-house charges for storing them.---The buyer rejected the goods and then disposed them of in order to recover the ware-house charges for having stored them. He contended that he as a bailee had the right to do so.

Held: The buyer of the good. s having rejected them and thereafter selling them as the goods belonging to him, stands on a different footing than the bailee contemplated under sections 151 and 170 of the Contract Act. The principle on Which a bailee is entitled to dispose of the goods or has lien on the goods bailed with him are entirely different and are not applicable to the case of the sale of goods. As discussed above, the buyer of the goods after rejecting them, has no lien on the goods in dispute and must place them at the disposal of the seller for dealing with them in any manner he likes.

Due care---If onus lies on the bailee---How should the onus be discharged---Duty of the plaintiff in case of loss of goods.---Per Yakub Ali, J. Section 151 of the Contract Act subjects a bailee to the duty of taking as much care of the goods entrusted to him as a prudent man would take of his own goods of similar quality and bulk. That the bailee discharged his statutory duly in respect of the goods entrusted to him can obviously be proved the bailee and not by the bailor. The onus therefore, to prove what steps had been taken by the bailee in discharge of the duty imposed upon him by law would initially lie on him and not on the bailor.

The loss of goods entrusted to a bailee is prima facie evidence of his negligence, and the question still remains to be answered whether inspite of such loss any onus remains on the plaintiff to prove negligence after the defendant bailee has failed to prove that he had discharged his duty as it bailee under section 151 of the Contract Act. It is obvious that if the defendant satisfies the Court that he took as much care of the goods entrusted to him as a man of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods of similar quality and bulk, there will be no scope for the plaintiff to prove any negligence on the part of the defendant to indemnify him for the loss of his goods. Vice versa, if the plaintiff succeeds in proving negligence on the part of the defendant bailee, it will not be open to the defendant to contend or show that in the discharge of his duty he had acted according to what he was enjoined upon to do under section 151 of the Contract Act.

Per Akhlaq Hussain, J. In a suit against a railway company or administration the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant failed to take the care which, under section 151 on the Contract Act, it is the duty of a bailee to take. That section, be it noted, does not lay the onus on a ballet in a suit against him to prove that he took the care which it was his duty to take. It only defines the measures of his duty; and a plaintiff can succeed only by proving its absence. Therefore it would be entirely erroneous on the part of a Court to cost any burden on the defendant by framing an issue whether he took due care or ally care.

Another point to note is that section 105 does not cast the burden of proving due care upon the defendant; it only makes it his duly to prove such facts relating to the care actually taken by him which are "especially within his knowledge." The burden of the issue whether loss has been occasioned by the failure of the defendant to take due care rests squarely upon the plaintiff throughout, under sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act; and while evidence is being led on that issue the plaintiff may be exonerated from proving certain relevant facts" but not the issue itself.

Goods carried by railway by route other than the usual route---Goods damaged or deteriorated---Railway liable---Risk note is no protection.---A contract for the carriage of goods does always mention the place where the goods are booked, the place of destination, and impliedly also the route by which the goods are to be carried. Therefore, if without the knowledge and consent of the party concerned the railway choose to carry the goods by a route other than the route agreed upon or the usual route, they do so at their own risk and cannot fall back upon the terms contained in the Risk Note contrary to the terms on which they carry the goods by a different route, nor can they claim that they are absolved from the general statutory liability or a bailee.

The Risk Note does not stand in the way of the claim of the plaintiff at all.

Loss of goods during transit---Railway liable---Absence of brake---Negligence of railway.---Where goods were lost during transit and it was found that there was no vacuum or brake in the van of the guard so that the train could not be stopped in case of theft in the running train.

Held: There ought to be a vacuum in a train in order that in case of theft while it is running it may be stopped. That a vacuum should be there in the brake of the guard is not denied and the failure to keep a vacuum against the rules would be negligence. Therefore the failure to provide brake should be considered a negligent act on the part of the Railway.

Held further: That there is no satisfactory evidence from which it could be inferred that they had taken proper care of the consignment as bailer of the goods consigned. Therefore, the railway was liable for the loss of goods.

Railway---Liability while carrying goods---Similar to that of a bailee.---Held; The railway carries goods delivered to it by a party as a bailee under a contract and is bound to take such care of the goods as that taken by a man of ordinary prudence. It is only when it wants to limits its liability that it can enter into special contracts with the parties concerned.

Short delivery of goods---Goods carried on shipper’s risk---Company liable for short delivery under the sections---Where the goods were carried on shipper's risk, and the shipping company made a short delivery of goods.

Held: It cannot be said that the special contract between the shipping company and the plaintiff is of such a comprehensive nature as to absolve the shipping company from all liability so as to exclude sections 151, and 152, Contract Act, from coming into operation. The company was therefore liable for loss on account of the short delivery.

Loss of pledged goods---Liability of pledgee not affected by agreement that pledgee would not be responsible for loss---Pledgee must prove that loss was in spite of due care by him.---The goods pledged to a Bank were stolen. The Bank took up the plea that it was not liable for the loss of goods in view of a term of agreement with the party by which the Bank was not to be held responsible for loss or damage to the goods.

Held: The defendant Bank when seeking to rely on the terms of the agreement from being excused from any liability of the pledged goods lost by theft, must first prove satisfactorily that the theft was committed by a person or persons other than the agent or employees of the Bank and that the theft was committed in spite of the pledgee Bank having taken proper protection with regard to the safety of the goods. This, the pledgee Bank must do, as even when a special agreement of this nature is entered into between the parties, failure of the party seeking cover under special term must attract the provisions of the sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act.

Goods entrusted to bailee damage by act of his servant---Servant acting outside his authority---Bailee is liable for the loss. A bailer is liable to the bailor in respect of the goods bailed when the goods suffered from the negligence of the servant of the bailee even though the negligent act look place while the servant was dealing with the articles for his own purpose.

Liability of common carrier by Sea---Not governed by Ss. 151, 152---Common carrier would be liable accordingly to terms of contract embodied in Bill of Lading---Carrier (shipper) would be immune from liability for any loss in a case where under terms of Bill of Lading goods were shipped on Deck and at consigner's risk.

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (XXVI of 1925), Sched., Art. 1 (c)---Carriage of goods by sea---Cargo carried on deek and at consignor's risk short landing at destination---Liability for loss---Liability of carriers not governed by Ss. 151 & 152, Contract Act, 1872---Word 'goods' in Art. 1 (e) of Sched. to Carriage of Goods by Sea Act---Connotation---Cargo not governed by provisions of said Act---Negligence alleged by substitute of consignor denied by carrier in written statement---Carrier bringing evidence to show that goods were damaged due to act of God---Contention that provisions of Ss. 151 & 152, Contract Act were applicable in instant case not tenable.

Bailee's liability for damages---Damage to one Case caused by negligence of servants and/or agents of Stevedore Company engaged by Shipping Company---Shipping Company neither taking plea of having taken as much care as man of ordinary prudence would take of his own goods nor pleading special contract---Shipping Company, held, responsible to importer.

Bailor and bailee, relationship of---Correspondence showing Bank from time to time informing plaintiff about stock of plaintiff in custody of Bank---F.I.R. about theft of goods also lodged by an officer of Bank---Chowkidar of Bank also deputed to guard goods in question---Deliveries of goods made by Bank on delivery orders issued by plaintiff---Rent for godown and salary of Chowkidar also recovered by Bank from plaintiff---Bank, held, bailee for reward of goods of plaintiff.

152. Bailee when not liable for loss, etc, of thing bailed.---The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care of it described in Section 151.

Care to be taken by bailee.---Since the standard of diligence required of a bailee is that of the average prudent man, a bailee of goods is not liable for loss of the goods by theft in this shop, if it is shown that he took as much care of the articles bailed as an ordinary prudent man would under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same quality and value. For the same reason if A sends jewels to B for repairs, asking B to return them after repair as a value payable parcel, and B does so, B is not liable for the loss of the jewels merely because he failed to insure the parcel. Failure to insure the jewels is not evidence of want of such care as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods, especially when the owner himself does not insure them when sending them out for repair. But it is negligence on the part of a carrier of goods to send jute in a boat with twenty or thirty leaks on its side, one or one and a half inches in length, and keep the goods in the hold of the boat for thirty hours.

The bailee's duty does not necessarily come to an end when the. goods are lost or stolen.

Liability of common carrier by Sea---Not governed by Ss. 151, 152---Common carrier would be liable accordingly to terms of contract embodied in Bill of Lading---Carrier (Shipper) would be immune from liability for any loss in a case whereunder terms of Bill of Lading goods were shipped on Deck and at consigner's risks.

153. Termination of bailment by bailee's act inconsistent with, conditions. A contract of bailment is voidable at the option of the bailor, if the bailee does any act with regard to the goods bailed, inconsistent with the conditions of the bailment.

A lets to B, for hire, a horse for his own riding. B drives the horse in his carriage. This is, at the option to A, a termination of the bailment.

It is well settled law that a wrongful use or disposal of the goods by the bailee determines to bailment and remits the bailor to the right and remedies of a person entitled to possession; a wrongful act means, for this purpose, a dealing wholly inconsistent with the terms of the bailment. The English authorities go into refinements as to the precise kind of wrong committed and the precise form of action available which are almost as subtle as anything in either European or Hindu philosophy; but, as these are intimately connected with the old Common Law system of pleading, we have no occasion to consider them here. Merely irregular exercise of a right, such as a sub-pledge to a third person by a pledgee, or a premature sale by a pledgee with power of sale, has not the same effect. The present section has the merit of simplicity, and does not appear to have given rise to any litigation.

154. Liability of bailee making unauthorised use of goods bailed. If the bailee makes any use of the goods bailed, which is not according to the conditions of the bailment, he is liable to make compensation to the bailor for any damage arising to the goods from or during such use of them.

(a) A lends a horse to B for his own riding only. B allows C, a member of his family, to ride the horse. C rides with care, but the horse accidentally falls and is injured. B is liable to make compensation to A for the injury done to the horse.

(b) A hires a horse in Karachi from B expressly to march to Hyderabad. A rides with due care, but marches to Khairpur instead. The horse accidentally falls and is injured. A is liable to make compensation to B for the injury to the horse.

Illustration (b) is apparently .suggested by the case put in old English books of a man borrowing a horse to ride to York and riding to Carlisle. Discussion of the old forms of action being here superfluous, no comment is required.

155. Effect of mixture, with bailor's consent, of his goods with bailee's. If the bailee, with the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods of the bailor with his own goods, the bailor and the bailee shall have an interest in proportion to their respective shares, in the mixture thus produced.

Performance bond---Awarding of amount claimed by plaintiff by way of refund of amounts paid to defendant---Jurisdiction of umpire---Such question having been raised in statement of claim before arbitrator---Umpire, held, had Jurisdiction to deal with refund of amount forfeited by defendant in terms of bank guarantee and to allow or disallow requisite claim---By such refund of amount umpire had impliedly found that defendant was not entitled to forfeit Performance Bond---Umpire is not required under law to give separate findings on each issue or point raised before him.

156. Effect of mixture without bailor’s consent, when the goods can be separated. If the bailee, without the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods of the bailor with his own goods, and the goods can be separated or divided, the property in the goods remains in the parties respectively; but the bailee is bound to bear the expense of separation or division, and any damage arising from the mixture.

A bails 100 bags of cotton marked with a particular mark to B. B without A's consent, mixes the 100 bales with other bales of his own bearing a different mark, A is entitled to have his 100 bales returned, and B is bound to bear all the expense incurred in the separation of the bales and any other incidental damage.

The proposition is almost too obvious to need stating. Not only this, but any other difficulty caused by unauthorised acts of the bailee which may attend the return of the bailor's goods according to the contract must be at the bailee's risk and expense.

157. Effect of mixture, without bailor's consent, when the goods can be separated.---If the bailee, without the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods of the bailor with his own goods; in such a manner that it is impossible to separate the goods, bailed from the other goods and deliver them back, the ballot is entitled to be compensated by the bailee for the loss of the goods.

Illustration

A bails a barrel of Cape flour, worth Rs. 45, to B.B, without A’s consent, mixes the flour with country flour of his own, worth only Rs. 25 a barrel. B must compensate A for the loss of his flour.

By the Trusts act, 1882, S. 66, "where the trustee wrongfully mingles the trust-property with his own, the beneficiary is entitled to a charge on the whole fund for the amount due to him."

158. Repayment by bailor of necessary expenses. Where, by the conditions of the bailment, the goods are to be kept or to be carried, or to have work done upon them by the bailee for the bailor, and the bailee is to receive no remuneration, the bailor shall repay to the bailee the necessary expenses incurred by him for the purpose of the bailment.

This and the next two sections represent Story’s opinion partly of what the law is and partly of what it should be. One does not quite see why in our law the bailee’s promise may not be limited to returning the goods at a certain date or on demand after a certain date, if such is the agreement of the parties. The bailor may intend to accept a promise so qualified as the consideration for parting with the possession of the goods, and there is no known rule of law to prevent effect from being given to that intention. Why not let the parties make their own terms instead of borrowing a fixed rule from a system which has no doctrine of consideration? But the truth is that gratuitous bailments, though very common in private life, are not matters of business and therefore do not come into court.

159. Restoration of goods lent gratuitously. The lender of a thing for use may at any time require its return, if the loan was gratuitous, even though he lent it for a specified time or purpose. But, if on the faith of such loan made for a specified time or purpose, the borrower has acted in such a manner that the return of the thing lent before the time agreed upon would cause him loss exceeding the benefit actually derived by him from the loan, the lender must, if he compels the return, indemnify the borrower for the amount in which the loss so occasioned exceeds the benefit so derived.

No authority has been found for Story’s view, which appears, as above stated, to be nedlessly complicated. On principal the question is what the terms of the contract were. Quaere whether an express contract not to recall a thing gratuitously lent before the expiration of a certain time would not be good in India notwithstanding this section. There is no difficulty about the consideration.

160. Return of goods bailed on expiration of time or accomplishment of purpose. It is the duly of the bailee to return, or deliver the goods bailed, without demand, as soon as the time for which they were bailed has expired, or the purpose for which they were bailed has been accomplished.

Nothing is said here about the extent of the bailor’s remedies if the goods are not forthcoming. He can have an action for damages against the bailee, but also he has further equitable rights. "if the bailee sells the goods bailed, the bailor can in equity follow the proceeds, and can follow the proceeds wherever they can be distinguished either being actually kept separate, or being mixed up with other moneys".

It has been established for a very long period.... that the principles relating to the following of trust property [compare the Trusts Act, Ss. 63-65] are equally applicable to the case of a trustee and to the case of factors, bailees, or other kinds of agents... wherever a specific chattel is entrusted by one man to another, either for the purpose of safe custody or for the purpose of being disposed of for the benefit of the person entrusting the chattel; then either the chattel itself, or the proceeds of that chattel, whether the chattel has been rightfully or wrongfully disposed of, may be followed at any time, although either the chattel itself, or the money constituting the proceeds of the chattel, may have been mixed and confounded in a mass of the like material. The development of this doctrine in cases of trust is not within our scope; it is connected with the special application and limitation of the rules as to appropriation of payments (S. 61, above).

It is obvious that in a case where the goods are found unfit for the purpose for which they were hired the purpose for which they were bailed is not accomplished; but the consequences are not here declared. It seems that all the bailee is bound to do is to give notice to the bailor of the default.

161. Bailee's responsibility when goods are not duly returned. If, by the default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered or tendered at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods from that time.

Unexplained failure to return the thing bailed is presumed to be by the bailee's default. A bailee who refuses to give delivery except upon some unjust or unreasonable condition is in default.

Conversely, if a bailor or consignee omits or refuses to take his goods at the proper time from a carrier (or, it would seem, any other kind of bailee) who is ready and willing to deliver them, he may be liable to compensate the bailee for any necessary expenses of and incidental to their safe custody. But the goods are not at the risk of the bailor, and the bailee will be liable for any breach of duty under S. 151.

Bailee wrongfully converting goods kept with him---Liable for loss of bailor.---A bailee who either refused to give delivery of the goods under his custody or fails to return the goods to the bailor, is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods from that time.

Delivery of pledged property---How may be made---When constructive delivery is sufficient. Delivery, either actual or constructive, of the articles pledged in consideration of the debt or advance is essential to the contract. Constructive delivery is where it is practically impossible to give physical possession, or where the pledge remains in the possession of the pledgor for a special purpose and the pledge is legally delivered though it does not actually pass from the hands of the pledgor to those of the pledgee. Delivery of a key of a warehouse in which goods are stored, or of a delivery order directing a warehouseman to deliver goods to the pledgee, is sufficient in law to form constructive delivery. It is not essential that the advance and the delivery should be contemporaneous. it is sufficient if possession be delivered within a reasonable time of the advance, in pursuance of the contract to pledge

Pledgor and pledgee---Relationship of the parties discussed.---The general property in goods pledged remains in the pledgor, but a special property in them passes to the pledgee in order that he may be able to sell the pledge if his right to sell arises. This special property is such that if a bailee accepts, as security for goods brought, an object of value; he fraudulent retaking of the object by the bailor is larceny. By the bailment of goods by a debtor to his creditor in pledge, or as a security for a debt, the pledgee impliedly undertakes to deliver back the property to the pledgor, when the sum for which it was pledged is paid, and the pledgor impliedly undertakes that the property pledged is his own and may be safely returned to him. If the pledgor makes default in payment at the stipulated time, the pledgee may sell the pledge, even though there be not any express agreement to that effect, or he may sue the pledgor or his debt, retaining the pledge as a security. But if a time for payment has not been agreed upon, or if the time agreed upon has been extended indefinitely, the pledgee cannot sell the pledge until after demand and notice.

162. Termination of gratuitous bailment by death, A gratuitous bailment is terminated by the death either of the bailor or of the bailee.

The executors of persons who have borrowed things, especially books, do not always remember this, as is shown by common experience. On the other hand, the executors of a lender may tacitly and discreetly, in many cases, treat the loan as a gift without fear of being Called to account for a davastavit. The problems hence arising, if any, seem to be rather ethical than legal, save so far as the law of limitation cures this amongst other irregularities. The present section does not, of course, exempt the bailee’s estate from liability for any default in his lifetime.

163. Bailor entitled to increase or profit from goods bailed.---In the absence of any contract to the contrary, the bailee is bound to deliver to the bailor, or according to his directions, any increase or profit which may have accrued from the goods bailed.

A leaves a cow in the custody of B to be taken care of. The cow has a calf. B is bound to deliver the calf as well as the cow to A.

COMMENTS

Good sense, and therefore, good law, seemingly without any previous reported authority. New shares allotted in respect of shares that have been pledged are an increase claimable by the pledger.

164. Bailor's responsibility to bailee.---The bailer is responsible to the bailee for any loss which the bailee may sustain by reason that the bailor was not entitled to make the bailment, or to receive back the goods or to give directions, respecting them.

If the terms of the bailment are such that its natural determination as between the parties is delivery over to a third person, and there is a paramount title elsewhere, the bailee may be in difficulties, which, however, are mitigated by S. 166.

165. Bailment by several .joint owners.---If several joint owners of goods bail them, the bailee may deliver them back to, or according to the directions of, one joint owner without the consent of all, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

"May," not "must". Even if there is an agreement to the contrary, one of several joint owners cannot, after having accepted redelivery from the bailee, sue him jointly with the other owners; for "one party to a contract cannot maintain an action for a breach occasioned by his own act, and neither can three parties maintain an action unless each party separately could."

166. Bailee not responsible on redelivery to bailer without title. If the bailer has no title to the goods, and the bailee, in good faith, delivers them back to, or according to the directions of, the bailer, the bailee is not responsible to the owner in respect of such delivery.

Return of goods to or to the order of the bailor.---A bailee who in good faith returns the goods bailed to the bailor or his order is not liable to the true owner of goods. N. entrusted certain bales of cotton to L., a muccadam (warehouseman). L pledged the cotton with B (with whom he had dealings for several years) to secure advances made by B to L. Subsequently L redeemed the pledge, and the cotton was returned by B to or to the order of L.N sued B and L claiming delivery of the goods or their value. The Privy Council held that whether the pledge by L to B was or was not valid under S. 178, the return of the goods by B in good faith to L was a complete defence to the suit. The section really applicable was the present section, but the case was wrongly argued as under S. 178, which it was held unnecessary to consider.

Estoppel of bailee.---Cp. the Evidence Act, 1872, S. 117.---"...Nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at the time when the bailment or license commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such license...Expl. (2).---If a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the bailer, he rally prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailer."

The rule of the Common Law is that generally a bailee is estopped from denying his bailor's title. He is not only justified in delivering to the bailer or according to his directions, but he is not justified in refusing to deliver to the bailer unless he is under the effective pressure of an adverse claim, and defends upon the right and title and by the authority of the third person so claiming. There must be something equivalent to an eviction by a paramount title, which if it actually took place would of course determine the bailment. But if the bailer has by his own act, as by mortgaging the thing bailed, made it impossible for the bailee to redeliver to him without being exposed to an action at the suit of a third person, then the bailee is excused.

But if a man accepts a bailment with notice at the lime of an adverse claim, he must stand by the election he has made, and cannot afterwards rely on the adverse title against his bailer.

A common carrier's position is not quito the same, as he must in any case accept goods offered him for carriage and cannot make inquiries as to the ownership. He may safely deliver in pursuance of his employment until he has notice of an adverse claim, but after notice he would so deliver at his peril, and therefore is justified in delivering to the real owner.

If a warehouseman, or other such like person having the custody of goods, acknowledges that he holds them at the order of a certain person, he thereby makes himself that person's bailee, and is estopped from denying his title to the same extent as if he had actually accepted delivery from him.

167. Right of third person claiming goods bailed.---If a person, other than the bailor, claims goods bailed, he may apply to the Court to stop the delivery of the goods to the bailor, and to decide the title to the goods.

The bailee's protection against conflicting claims appears to be left to the general directions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

168. Right of finder of goods; may sue for specific reward offered. The finder of goods has no right to sue the owner for compensation for trouble and expense voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods and to find out the owner; but he may retain the goods against the owner until he receives such compensation; and, where the owner has offered a specific reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such reward, and may retain the goods until he receives it.

By the Common Law a person who finds lost goods and holds them with the intention of saving them for the true owner is certainly not a trespasser, and has no higher duties than a bailee; but, the service being rendered without request from the owner, he does not seem entitled to any remuneration, unless a specific reward has been offered for the return of the goods, and the offer has come to his knowledge (see on S. 8, "General Offers", above); and if he cannot claim compensation there is no ground on which he can retain the goods. But it seems the Court would be astute to lay hold of any evidence which might constitute a cause of action for a meritorious finder who had been at substantial pains, and it is possible that in some cases he might have rights analogous to a salvor's. It appears to have been a current opinion as late as the seventeenth century that a finder could abandon the goods with impunity.

The rule of the present section appears to be intended to satisfy natural justice. Presumably the compensation, if no specific reward has been offered and the parties cannot agree, is to be what the Court considers reasonable. If the parties do agree, the owner's promise of reward may be binding under S. 25, sub- S. 2 (ante).

169. When finder of firing commonly on sale may sell it.---When a thing which is commonly the subject of sale is lost, if the owner cannot with reasonable diligence be found, or if he refuses, upon demand, to pay the lawful charges of the finder, the finder may sell it---

(1) When the thing is in danger of perishing or of losing the greater part of its value, or,

(2) When the lawful charges of the finder, in respect of the thing found, amount to two thirds of its value.

170. Bailee's particular lien. Where the bailee has, in accordance with the purpose of the bailment, rendered any service involving the exercise of labour or skill in respect of the goods bailed, he has, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a right to retain such goods until he receives due remuneration for the services he has rendered in respect of them.

(a) A deliver a rough diamond to B, a jeweller, to be cut and polished, which is accordingly done. B is entitled to retain the stone till he is paid for the services he has rendered.

(b) A gives cloth to B, a tailor, to make into a coat. B promises A to deliver the coat as soon as it is finished, and to give A three months’ credit for the price. B is not entitled to retain the coat until he is paid.

Principle of bailee’s lien.---This section expresses the "Common Law principle that if a man has an article delivered to him, on the improvement of which he has to bestow trouble and expense, he has a right to detain it until his demand is paid.

Where a bailee has expended his labour and skill in the improvement of a chattel delivered to him, he has a lien for his charge in that respect. Thus the artificer to whom the goods are delivered for the purpose of being worked up into form, or the farrier by whose skill the animal is cured of a disease, or the horse-breaker by whose skill he is rendered manageable, have liens on the chattels in respect of their charges. An agister, who merely takes in an animal to feed it, is not entitled to a lien, as not coming within this principle, for he does not confer any additional value on the thing entrusted to him. A garage owner is not entitled to a lien merely for maintaining a motor car.

A bailee's lien is lost if he surrenders possession of the goods, even though he subsequently regains possession. The line never arises unless the bailee has a right to continuing possession of the goods, so that if the bailor has the right to remove the goods from time to time, there is no lien, in the absence of an express agreement that the goods shall remain "in pawn" despite temporary removal by the bailor.

Further, where a person does work on goods delivered to him under an entire contract, the fact that the deliveries arc at different times does not affect his right to a lien on all goods dealt with under that contract. Accordingly, where jute was delivered to a pressing company from time to time to be baled, but all under one contract, the lien was held to attach to all such goods.

A bailee for reward cannot transfer his lien to a sub-contractor without the bailor's authority. But such authority may be implied. If H, who has hired a car from a car owner O, under a hire-purchase agreement, by the terms of which H has undertaken to keep the car in repair, delivers the car to a garage proprietor G for repair, G has a lien not only against H, but also against O: the express duty to repair leads to an implied authority to create a lien for repair. This implied authority is not removed by the fact that H is in arrear with the payments of the hire-purchase installments at the time the vehicle is delivered to G for repair, unless O has already terminated the agreement for such default before the car is left with G.

Contract to the contrary.---A lien, good against the owner, arises in favour of a repairer, employed by a hirer, even though the contract of hire-purchase expressly forbids the creation of a lien, if this prohibition is unknown to the repairer.

Where there is an express contract to do certain work for a specified sum of money, there is no room for a quantum meruit claim. A person, therefore, to whom an organ is delivered for repairs for a certain sum is not entitled to retain it as security for a sum of money claimed not under the contract, but for worked done. While the special contract is in force there is no other "due remuneration" than the sum expressly contracted for.

Exaggerated claim made---Right to lien till payment of actual amount due is not lost.

Goods under one contract delivered at different times---Lien is created on all goods.----Where a person does work on goods delivered to him under an entire contract, with reference to goods delivered at different times, such as to establish a lien, he is entitled to that lien on all goods dealt with under that contract.

Lien created---Value of goods being disproportionate to actual amount due does not affect lien.

Lien---Exists only Where there is right to continuous possession. The established practice is that without the right of continuing possession there can be no right of a lien. If the owner, therefore, has a right to assert the possession and to interrupt the possession of the party claiming the lien such a right of the owner would be inconsistent with a lien.

Contract for packing jute---Advance payment of Rs. 30,000 made---Goods packed and found hypothecated to third party---Packer cannot have prior charge on goods to recover balance of packing charges. Where the plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant No. 1 for packing 30,000 pucca bales of jute and for this he received Rs. 30,000/- in advance. Defendant No. 1 left for India leaving behind 4,000 bales of jute when the outstanding charge still due to the plaintiff stood at Rs. 60,000/- So the plaintiff filed this stilt under the ordinary law of contract and equity for declaring a prior lein over the existing 4,000 bales of jute and also for a decree of Rs. 60,000. The suit was contested only by defendant No. 6 who claimed that by a written instrument dated 2-8-54 defendant No. 1 had hypothecated and created a first charge on all. its stock of jute and as such defendant No. 6 was entitled to take possession of the same jute.

Held: Equity can only come into play as and when it is found that the party is subject to some hardship for no fault of his. Since the plaintiff did not put any restriction, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is entitled to invoke principle of equity in the matter of realisation of any charge that may be due from defendant No. 1 for the jute stocked in his godown.

Jute delivered to pressing company for pressing---Bales placed in godown of company with freedom to owner of bales to deal with them as he liked---Pressing company has no lien on goods in godown in case of non-payment of bill.