40 Tee law of agency.

undertaking a service for another is a sufficient legal con-

sideration to create a duty in the performance of it. In

this case Powell, J., said ; '' And this action is founded upon

the warranty upon which I have been contented to trust

you with the goods, which without such a warranty I

would not have done. And a man may warrant a thing

without any consideration. And therefore when I have

reposed a trust in you upon your undertaking, if I suffer,

when I have so relied upon you, I shall have my action."

And Holt, C.J., said; "And so a bare being trusted with

another man's goods must be taken to be a sufficient con-

sideration, if the bailee once enter upon the trust, and take

the goods into his possession."

Wilkinson v. Coverdale (1793), 1 Esp. 74 ; here it was

decided that when a party undertakes to procure an in-

surance policy for another, without consideration; if the

party undertaking actually carries his undertaking into

effect, but does it so negligently that the other party can

derive no benefit from it, then the latter has a right of

action against the former.

Sldels V. Blackhurne (1789), 1 H. Bl. 159; here Lord

Loughborough said ; " I agree that when a bailee under-

takes to perform a gratuitous act, from which the bailor

alone is to receive benefit, then the bailee is only liable for

gross negligence : but if a man gratuitously undertakes to

do a thing to the best of his skill, when his situation or

profession is such as to imply skill, an omission of that

skill is imputable to him as gross negligence."

Doorman v. Jenkins (1834), 2 A. & E. 25G ; here

Taunton, J., said ; " The phrase " gross negligence " means

nothing more than a great and aggravated degree of negli-

gence, as distinguished from negligence of a lower degree."

Beal v. The South Devon liailivay (1800), 5 H. & N. 875;

here Pollock, C.B., said ; " From a gratuitous bailee is

reasonably expected such care and diligence as persona

ordinarily show in their own affairs, and such skill as he

RIGHTS OF A PRINCIPAL AGAINST HIS AGENT. 41

has. From a bailee for hire is reasonably expected such

care and diligence as are exercised in the ordinary course

of a similar business, and such skill as he ought to have,

namely, the skill usual and requisite in the business for

which he receives payment."

Gihlin V. McMullen (1868), 2 L. R P. C. 317; here the

Privy Council held that a bank that were gratuitous bailees

of certain debentures which had been entrusted to them by

a customer, were not bound to exercise more than ordinary

care of them, and that the negligence for which alone they

would be liable, would be the want of that ordinary care

which a reasonably prudent man takes of his own property

of the like description.

A barrister is not liable even for gross negligence and

want of skill in the exercise of his profession, as his services

are purely gratuitous, and honorary.

Fell V. Bvoivn (1791), Peake. 96 ; here it was held that

an action would not lie against a barrister for negligently

and unskilfully settling and signing a bill filed in Chancery.

Mulligan v. McDonogh (1860), 2 L. T. N.S. 163; here