The laws and regulations which applied to agricultural land-tenure, applied for the most part to the leasing of plantations and gardens as well. Thanks to the extraordinary fertility of Babylonian soil the owners of land became very wealthy; this notwithstanding, the money-lender was not without clients. Unforeseen disasters occurred, which crippled the landowner, and but for the money-lender he would not be able to tide over the trouble. As security for the loan he frequently mortgaged his land, but the code enacted that he should at all times reap the crop himself, and pay off the debt and the money-lender’s expenses from the produce. Moreover the money-lender was legally bound to accept such produce or corn in settlement of the debt, and could not insist on being paid in money, unless, as was frequently the case, he had stipulated in the contract that the loan was to be repaid in the same form as that in which it had been received. As a further safeguard for the unfortunate money-borrower it was made illegal to exercise distraint for rent or anything else upon a working ox. This was a humane law, for the watering of the ground, as well as the ploughing of the soil and the threshing of the wheat, was largely done by oxen. The laws regulating the irrigation of the land were stringent owing to the disastrous consequences resulting from negligence on the part of any concerned. Once the canals had been made, it was the bounden duty of each landowner, whether small or great, to keep that part of the canal which passed by or through his land in good repair. If that part of the bank of the canal for which he was responsible gave way, and the water thereby flooded his neighbour’s land, he had to pay damages in full, and if he were insolvent he could be sold up. He was entitled to open a runnel to water his field, but if the water swamped the adjoining fields through some inadvertence or negligence on his part, he had to give full compensation. The wages, presumably the minimum wage of the labourer, was fixed by law, as also was the hire-price of oxen and wagons. The hirer of animals was under a legal obligation to take proper care of them, and omission to do so involved a penalty. But if an accident occurred which the hirer could not be expected to foresee or prevent—such as an attack by a lion—the owner had to bear the loss. This was also the case if the person in charge of the animal was a shepherd or herdsman in the owner’s employ, the principle being the same in both cases. Wilful negligence was not to be condoned, but on the other hand, the consequence of unforeseen and unavoidable accidents was not to be visited upon either hirer or employee.