| Miss. | Oct 15, 1895
delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellee, as borrower of the horse, had possession of and a special or transient property, for the time, in the animal, and was entitled to bring his action against a wrongdoer by whose negligence the animal was lost or destroyed. He had no legal interest in the animal as against his bailor, but he had a real interest, nevertheless, in the custody and care of the property, because he was liable to the lender for it, and his possession of and special interest in the horse gave him an action against a wrongdoer. Either the lender or the borrower may bring suit in cases of this character, but a recovery by one of them may be pleaded in bar of any suit by the other for a like recovery, the bailee’s suit for the naked value only of the property, and a recovery therein, being in trust for the real owner. Schouler’s Bailment, pp. 63, 64, 86; Story on Bailments, 94, 234; Woodman v. Nottingham, 49 N. H., 387; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. L., 61, note 2 and cases there cited.
The other contentions appear to us to be without merit.
Affirmed.