Source: http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/07/a-critique-of-murray-rothbard-on.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:12:17+00:00

Document:
“The Legal Nature of the Relationship between Banker and Customer in Old English Law,” Economicreflections, 30 July, 2014.
The author goes into detail on the legal issues of mutuum and bailment, and the lack of evidence for Rothbard’s views.
(5) Foley v. Hill and Others (1848).
I have discussed Carr v. Carr here, and Foley v. Hill here.
The author has a good discussion of Carr v. Carr (1811), Devaynes v. Noble (1816), and Foley v. Hill (1848).
The author also points out that the distinction between mutuum and bailment (depositum regulare) was already known and described as part of English law by the 13th century English legal writer Bracton (in volume 2 of De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae).
“Debt* may arise either upon a Lending (mutuum), or a Sale (venditio), or a Borrowing (commodatum), or a Letting out (locatio), or a Deposit (depositum), or from some other just cause inducing a Debt.
So Glanville already in the 12th century also knows the mutuum and bailment contracts.
I would suggest that if the cup is still the property of the person who lent it, this is better understood as what the Romans called commodatum (or a gratuitous “loan for use”), not bailment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.