pawnee.

15 So, if clothes are delivered to be cleaned or finished or mended for
a certain remuneration, and then are stolen, it is the fuller or tailor
who can sue on the theft, and not the owner; for the owner suffers
nothing by the loss, having the action of letting against the fuller or
tailor for the recovery of his property. Similarly a purchaser in good
faith, even though a good title as owner is not given to him, can bring
the action of theft if the property is stolen, exactly like the pawnee.
The action is, however, not maintainable at the suit of a fuller or
tailor, unless he is solvent, that is to say, unless he is able to fully
indemnify the owner; if he is insolvent, the owner cannot recover from
him, and so can maintain an action against the thief, being, on this
hypothesis, interested in the recovery of the property. Where the fuller
or tailor is only partly instead of wholly solvent the rule is the same.

16 The older lawyers held that what has been said of the fuller and
tailor applied also to the borrower for use, on the ground that as
the remuneration which the fuller receives makes him responsible for
custody, so the advantages which the borrower derives from the use
requires him to keep it safely at his peril. Our wisdom, however, has
amended the law in this particular in our decisions, by allowing the
owner the option of suing either the borrower by action on the loan, or
the thief by action of theft; though when his choice has been determined
he cannot change his mind, and resort to the other action. If he prefers
to sue the thief, the borrower is absolutely released from liability;
but if he proceeds against the borrower, he cannot in any way himself
sue the thief on the stealing, though this may be done by the borrower,
who is defendant in the other action, provided that the owner knew, at
the time when he began his action against the borrower, that the thing
had been stolen. If he is ignorant of this, or even if he is merely
doubtful whether the borrower still has the property in his possession
or not, and sues him on the loan, he may, on subsequently learning the
facts, and if he wishes to drop the action which he has commenced, and
sue the thief instead, adopt this course, in which case no obstacle is
to be thrown in his way, because it was in ignorance that he took action
and sued the borrower on the loan. If, however, the owner has been
indemnified by the borrower, in no case can he bring t