whatever; and he shall, in addition, be amerced to the King. For, it is a general Rule, that whenever a person has said any thing in Court or in a Plea which he afterwards denies, or of which he has neither suit, nor Warrantor, nor sufficient proof,[387] or has been distrained to assert the contrary, or to deny it by sufficient proof, he shall be amerced to the King. But, if the person, against whom the Charter is produced to prove a certain Debt, acknowledge it from the first, then he shall be compelled to satisfy the Creditor, according to the tenor of the Charter. When any thing is lent on the joint strength of many of the proceeding securities, then, from the moment the Debtor makes default, he is liable to be distrained by all the securities being put in force against him at the same time. It is on this account, therefore, that many securities are taken, that in case of the inability of the Debtor, the Creditor may more readily be satisfied, than if there exist but one security only. [Footnote 386: The Text is not free from difficulty which evidently arises from an omission. I have ventured to introduce the words, “_should he, however, deny it, the Creditor_.” The Context countenances this conjecture.] [Footnote 387: A similar Law is to be found amongst those ascribed to the Conqueror. (LL. Gul. Conq. c. 28.)] CHAP. XIII. A debt sometimes arises when a thing is borrowed;[388] as if I lend a thing to you gratuitously, to be made use of in your service. The service being finished, you are bound to restore my property to me, without deterioration,[389] if it be in existence. [Footnote 388: _Commodatum._ (Justin. Inst. 3. 15. 2.) A _Commodatum_ differed from a _mutuum_, because the same person continued to be the owner, and because the same thing was to be returned, and not another of the same quantity or quality, as in a _mutuum_. (Dig. 13. 6. 8. and 9.) “They have different names in Latin, though not in English,” says Dr. Wood. (Civil Law. Inst.) To avoid the inconvenience and confusion of employing the same term for each, the Translator has called the one a loan, the other a borrowing. The distinction between a gratuitous loan for use, and a simple loan, occurs in the Code Napoleon, which is drawn, as, indeed, may be observed of no small portion of that work, from the Civil Law.] [Footnote 389: Skene refers to Exodus c. 22. v. 14. 15.]