were altogether insolvent, there was the
same reason for remitting the debt from love for them, as there was
for renewing the loan on account of their need.

As regards animals granted in loan, the Law enacted that if, through
the neglect of the person to whom they were lent, they perished or
deteriorated in his absence, he was bound to make restitution. But if
they perished or deteriorated while he was present and taking proper
care of them, he was not bound to make restitution, especially if
they were hired for a consideration: because they might have died or
deteriorated in the same way if they had remained in possession of
the lender, so that if the animal had been saved through being lent,
the lender would have gained something by the loan which would no
longer have been gratuitous. And especially was this to be observed
when animals were hired for a consideration: because then the owner
received a certain price for the use of the animals; wherefore he had
no right to any profit, by receiving indemnity for the animal, unless
the person who had charge of it were negligent. In the case, however,
of animals not hired for a consideration, equity demanded that he
should receive something by way of restitution at least to the value
of the hire of the animal that had perished or deteriorated.

Reply Obj. 5: The difference between a loan and a deposit is that a
loan is in respect of goods transferred for the use of the person to
whom they are transferred, whereas a deposit is for the benefit of
the depositor. Hence in certain cases there was a stricter obligation
of returning a loan than of restoring goods held in deposit. Because
the latter might be lost in two ways. First, unavoidably: i.e. either
through a natural cause, for instance if an animal held in deposit
were to die or depreciate in value; or through an extrinsic cause,
for instance, if it were taken by an enemy, or devoured by a beast
(in which case, however, a man was bound to restore to the owner what
was left of the animal thus slain): whereas in the other cases
mentioned above, he was not bound to make restitution; but only to
take an oath in order to clear himself of suspicion. Secondly, the
goods deposited might be lost through an avoidable cause, for
instance by theft: and then the depositary was bound to restitution
on account of his neglect. But, as stated above (ad 4), he who held
an animal on loan, was bound to restitution, even if he were absent