¶1 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.
¶2 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.
¶3 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.
¶4 There is no error.
¶5 Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.