clog versus bernard Trin Ann salk the plead ld raym S c a comens S c see S C  ld raym with note salk case lie against the defendant where he enter on a  thing agree on and do not perform it in a action on the case against the  defendant for his negligence in perform what he have undertake to do there be  a verdict for the plaintiff and it be object in arrest of judgement that in  this case there be no consideration to entitle the plaintiff to a action for  the defendant be to have no reward and it do not appear that he be a common  carrier or porter so that by custom or usage he may lawful claim a reward holt  chief justice in argue this matter declare that if the agreement have be only  executory I e if the defendant have assume to take up the hogshead of brandy  out of one cellar and lie it down in another which be this case and have not  do it this action will not have lie against he like the case in h when the  action be bring against the defendant upon a promise to build a house for the  plaintiff by such a day which he have not do it be hold that the action will  not lie for the reason before mention but that differ from the principal case  because the defendant have actual enter upon the performance of the thing  which he have promise to perform and the plaintiff rely on the defendant  promise have trust he to do it who by his negligence have deceive he and it be  the deceit which be the ground of this action it be true the defendant be not  bind to enter upon this trust but if he do he must take care that the  plaintiff be not damnified by his neglect he admit that there be a contrary  resolution in Yelv videlicet that if W r deliver good to l r and in  consideration thereof be promise to redeliver they yet no action will lie  against he if he do not redeliver they which resolution be not law that in cro  it be otherwise resolve videlicet where money be deliver to one to pay over to  another without custom adjudge that a action will lie against the defendant if  he do not pay it over for though he have no benefit by this undertake yet he  take the trust upon he he be bind to perform it see h Owen Keilw he likewise  hold that where a man carry good be of a public employment as a carrier  wharfinger hoiman or master of a ship he must answer all event except only the  act of God and the enemy of the king and that this be a politic establishment  for the safety of all person concern and who affair necessitate they to  entrust such carrier for by this mean all Salkeld private combination between  they and highwayman and other robber be prevent which can easy be discover but  if a bailiff or factor carry good and be rob he be not liable to the owner  though he have a premium because it be only a particular office and a private  trust he do the best he can and it will be unreasonable to charge he with a  trust far than the nature of the thing put it in his power to perform the same  law of a factor therefore if he be rob he shall not be Chargeable for it be  sufficient if he take the same care that the owner himself will have do but  where good be deliver to be carry gratis or to do any thing about they without  any reward which be call by Bracton mandatum and in English act by commission  this also oblige he to a diligent management and care of the good which be  imply in the very undertake and though the trust be voluntary yet by the  breach thereof a fraud be put upon the deliverer which be a sufficient ground  to support this action a vide the report in ld raym where the whole law of  bailment be discuss at large vide also Jones on bailments Yelv cro lib Salkeld  er p