Court Opinion

ID: 6421102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:59:51.047751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:46.817305
License: Public Domain

Holmes, J.
The modern cases follow the ancient rule, that a bailee can recover against a stranger for taking chattels from his possession. Shaw v. Kaler, 106 Mass. 448. Swire v. Leach, 18 C. B. (N. S.) 479. See Year Book 48 Edw. III. 20, pl. 8; 20 H. VII. 5, pl. 15; 2 Roll. Abr. 569, Trespass, P. pl. 5; Nicolls v. Bastard, 2 Cr., M. & R. 659, 660. And as the bailee is no longer answerable to his bailor for the loss of goods without his fault, his right to recover must stand upon his possession, in these days at least, if it has not always done so. But possession is as much protected against one form of trespass as another, and will support an action for damage to property, as well as one for wrongfully taking or destroying it. No distinction has been recognized by the decisions. Rooth v. Wilson, 1 B. & Ald. 59. Croft v. Alison, 4 B. & Ald. 590. Johnson v. Holyoke, 105 Mass. 80. The ruling requested was obviously wrong, as it denied all right of action to the plaintiff, and was not confined to the quantum of damages.
Even if the question before us were whether the plaintiff could recover full damages, his right to do so could not be denied as *59matter of law. A distinction might have been attempted, to be sure; under the early common law. For, although the bailee’s right was undoubted to recover full damages for goods wrongfully taken from him, this was always accounted for by his equally undoubted responsibility for their loss to his bailor, and there is no satisfactory evidence of any such strict responsibility for damage to goods which the bailee was able to return in specie.
But if this reasoning would ever have been correct, which is not clear, it can no longer apply when the responsibility of bailees is the same for damage to goods as for their loss, and when the ground of their recovery for either is simply their possession. Any principle that permits a bailee to recover full damages in the one case, must give him the same right in the other. But full damages have been allowed for taking goods, in many modern cases, although the former responsibility over for the goods has disappeared, and has been converted by misinterpretation into the now established responsibility for the proceeds of the action beyond the amount of the bailee’s interest. Lyle v. Barker, 5 Binn. 457. 7 Cowen, 681, n. (a). White v. Webb, 15 Conn. 302. Ullman v. Barnard, 7 Gray, 554. Adams v. O’Connor, 100 Mass. 515, 518. Swire v. Leach, 18 C. B. (N. S.) 492. The latter doctrine has been extended to insurance by bailees. De Forest v. Fulton Ins. Co. 1 Hall, 84, 91, 110, 116, 132. Crompton, J., in Waters v. Monarch Ins. Co. 25 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 102, 106.
If the bailee’s responsibility over in this modern form is not sufficient to make it safe in all cases to recognize his right to recover full damages, even where it was formerly undoubted, at least it applies as well to recoveries for harm done to property as it does to those for taking. Rindge v. Coleraine, 11 Gray, 157, 162. And if full damages are ever to be allowed, as it is settled that they may be, they should be recovered in the present case, where the plaintiff appears to have made himself debtor for the necessary repairs with the bailor’s assent. Johnson v. Holyoke, ubi supra. It is not necessary to consider what steps might be taken if the bailor should seek to intervene to protect his interest.

Exceptions overruled.