176/1 Y.B. 8 Ed. II. 275; Fitz. Detinue, pl. 59. 176/2 2 Ld. Raym. 909. 176/3 Y.B. 13 Ed. IV. 9, pl. 5. See Lecture VI. 176/4 29 Ass. 163, pl. 28. 176/5 Cf. Ratcliff v. Davis, Yelv. 178; Cro. Jac. 244; Noy, 137; 1 Bulstr. 29. 176/6 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1, pl. 3. This case is cited and largely relied on in Woodlife's Case, infra; Southcote v. Bennett, infra; Pickering v. Barkley, Style, 132 (24 Car. I., covenant on a charter-party); and Morse v. Slue, infra; in short, in all the leading cases on bailment. 177/1 Cf. Abbreviatio Plaeitorum, p. 343, col. 2, rot. 87, 17 Ed. II. 178/1 Y.B. 9 Ed. IV. 34, pl. 9; 2 Ed. IV. 15, pl. 7. It is proper to add, that in the latter case Littleton does not seem to distinguish between servants and bailees. 178/2 Y.B. 9 Ed. IV, 40, pl. 22. So Brian, in 20 Ed. IV. 11, pl. 10, ad fin. 178/3 Y.B. 10 Hen. VII. 25, 26, pl. 3. 178/4 Cf. L. Baiw., XV. 5; Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1, pl. 3. 178/5 Y.B. 6 Hen. VII. 12, pl. 9; Bro. Detinue, pl. 37; 10 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 69. 178/6 Y.B. 3 Hen. VII. 4, pl. 16. Cf. 10 Hen. VI. 21, pl. 69. 178/7 Y.B. 11 Hen. IV. 23, 24; 6 Hen. VII. 12, pl. 9. 178/8 Cro. Eliz. 815; 4 Co. Rep. 83 b; Co. Lit. 89; 2 BI. Comm. 452. 180/1 Savile, 133, 134. Cf. Bro. Accion sur le Case, pl. 103; Dyer, 161 a, b. 180/2 Nugent v. Smith, 1 C.P. D. 19, Brett, J., at p. 28. 180/3 Nugent v. Smith, 1 C.P. D. 423, Cockburn, C. J., at p. 428. 181/1 Moore, 462; Owen, 57. 181/2 Dial. 2, ch. 38, A.D. 1530. 182/1 Keilway, 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen. VIII.); cf. ib. 77b (21 Hen. VII.). 182/2 Y.B. 33 Hen. VI. 1, pl. 3. 182/3 4 Co. Rep. 83 b; Cro. Eliz. 815. 183/1 Keilway, 160, pl. 2. 183/2 Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49, ad fin. Cf. Mulgrave v. Ogden, Cro. Eliz. 219; S.C., Owen, 141, 1 Leon. 224; with Isaack v. Clark, 2 Bulstr. 306, at p. 312, Coke, J. 183/3 See Lecture VII. 184/1 Paston, J., in Y.B. 19 Hen. VI. 49. See, also, Rogers v. Head, Cro. Jac. 262; Rich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 330, which will be mentioned again. An innkeeper must be a common innkeeper, Y.B. 11 Hen. IV. 45. See further, 3 Bl. Comm. 165, where "the transition from status to contract" will be found to have taken place. 184/2 F. N. B. 94 D; infra, p. 203. 184/3 Y.B. 7 Hen. IV. 14; 12 Ed. IV. 13, pl. 9, 10; Dyer, 22 b. 184/4 The process may be traced by reading, in the following order, Y.B. 2 Hen. VII. 11; Keilway, 77 b, ad fin. (21 Hen. VII.); ib. 160, pl. 2 (2 Hen. VIII.); Drake v. Royman, Savile, 133, 134 (36 Eliz.); Mosley v. Fosset, Moore, 543 (40 Eliz.); 1 Roll. Abr. 4, F, pl. 5; Rich v. Kneeland, Cro. Jac. 330 (11 Jac. I.).