Martin v. . Cuthbertson
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Storm (N.C. Ct. App. 2023)
- Lacy v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. (N.C. 1927)
- Trustees v. . Banking Co. (N.C. 1921)
- Trustees of Elon College v. Elon Banking & Trust Co. (N.C. 1921)
- Cooke v. Foreman Derrickson Veneer Co. (N.C. 1915)
- McCurdy v. Wallblom Furniture & Carpet Co. (Minn. 1905)
- Hudson v. Columbian Transfer Co. (Mich. 1904)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Where there is a bailment, as in the case of borrowing or hiring 'a horse for a specific purpose, as to go to a certain place, or for a certain time, and there is any material departure from the terms of the bailment, the bail-ee becomes a wrong-doer, and is liable for any injury which results from the departure, without regard to the question of negligence.
In the case under consideration, the horse was borrowed, or hired, to go to a certain place, to be returned at a certain time: he was ridden to another place, and died on the trip. It was admitted that there was no negligence, — that is, as *329 we understand it, no miss-treatment, but that makes no difference.
And own constat that tbe horse would have died but for the departure from terms of the bailment. His Honor’s instruction, that the defendant was liable unless he took extraordinary care, was more favorable for the' defendant than the law allows, and therefore he cannot complain. He was liable even if he did take extraordinary care: Bell v. Bowen, 1 Jon. 316; Redfield on Bailment, Sec. 650.
There is no error.
Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.