A few years later the law is stated the same way by the famous Littleton.  He says that, if goods are delivered to [178] a man, he shall have an action of trespass if they are carried off, for he is chargeable over. 1 That is, he is bound to make the loss good to the party who intrusted him.

In 9 Edward IV., 2 Danby says if a bailee received goods to keep as his proper goods, then robbery shall excuse him, otherwise not.  Again, in a later case 3 robbery is said not to be an excuse.  There may have been some hesitation as to robbery when the robber was unknown, and so the bailee had no remedy over, 4 or even as to robbery generally, on the ground that by reason of the felony the bailee could not go against either the robber’s body or his estate; for the one was hanged and the other forfeited. 5 But there is not a shadow of doubt that the bailee was not excused by an ordinary wrongful taking.  “If the goods are taken by a trespasser, of whom the bailee has conusance, he shall be chargeable to his bailor, and shall have his action over against his trespasser.” 6 The same point was touched in other passages of the Year Books, 7 and the rule of law is clearly implied by the reason which was given for the bailee’s right to sue in the cases cited above.

The principle was directly decided in accordance with the ancient law in the famous case of Southcote v.  Bennet. 8 This was detinue of goods delivered to the defendant to [179] keep safely.  The defendant confessed the delivery, and set up he was robbed of the goods by J.S.  “And, after argument at the bar, Gawdy and Clench, ceteris absentibus, held that the plaintiff ought to recover, because it was not a special bailment; that the defendant accepted them to keep as his proper goods, and not otherwise; but it is a delivery, which chargeth him to keep them at his peril.  And it is not any plea in a detinue to say that he was robbed by one such; for he hath his remedy over by trespass, or appeal, to have them again.”  The above from Croke’s report implies, what Lord Coke expressly says, that “to be kept, and to be kept safe, is all one,” and both reports agree that the obligation was founded on the delivery alone.  Croke’s report confirms the caution which Lord Coke adds to his report:  “Note, reader, it is good policy for him who takes any goods to keep, to take them in special manner, scil. to keep them as he keeps his own goods, ... or if they happen to be stolen or purloined, that he shall not be answerable for them; for he who accepted them ought to take them in such or the like manner, or otherwise he may be charged by his general acceptance.”