The same is true of Neel's case, 33 Tex.Crim. Rep.. Hedge v. State, 89 Tex. Crim. 238; and Campos v. State, 84 Tex. Crim. 216, are cases in which the property came into the possession of the accused by a mistake of the owner, who had no intent to part the title. In each case the conviction was sustained under Art. 1332.
There can be no contention under the evidence in this case that the property came into the possession of C. W. Wilson by virtue of a contract, expressed or implied, between Phillips and Wilson. An essential of a bailment is the delivery of property by the bailor to the bailee for a particular purpose, and without such a delivery there can be no bailment, as contemplated by our statute. Northcutt v. State, 60 Tex.Cr.R. 259, 131 S.W. 1128, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 822; Calkins v. State, 34 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 29 S.W. 1081; Campos v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 216, 207 S.W. 931; Rundell v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 410, 235 S.W. 908. Under no view of the evidence, we think, could it be said Wilson was guilty of theft, theft as bailee, embezzlement, or any other criminal offense in acquiring possession of said certificate of stock.