Now it is necessary to ascertain what were the relations existing' between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is clearly a contract of bailment: of deposit of goods for safe custody for-reward, and I do not doubt that the defendants received them from the plaintiff. What is the responsibility of the defendants under such circumstances? They must: exercise such skill and care with regard to the goods as a prudent man would" exercise and they must allow the depositor to take possession on demand of the goods.
But they cannot allege that the depositor is not the owner, unless they do so on behalf of a third party and on his express authority: in other words, speaking generally a depositee is estoppe from denying his depositor's title. The: authorities for this are Biddle v. Bond. (6 B. & S. 225) and Rogers v. Lambert, (1891 1
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.