The liability rests solely on the first [trustee]. This is the school of Abu Hanifah, because he received the property in a way that necessitates liability on the first party, so it does not necessitate another liability. It differs from receiving property from a usurper; for that does not necessitate liability on the usurper, as liability is already binding upon him due to the usurpation. It is possible that he also has the right to hold the second person liable, because he received the property of another in a manner he was not entitled to, and without the owner's permission, so he is liable for it, like one who receives property from a usurper. This is the school of al-Shafi'i. Ahmad's mention of liability on the first party does not negate liability for the second, just as liability binds the usurper but does not negate its obligation upon the one who receives it from him. Based on this, the liability settles on the first party; if the owner holds him liable, he cannot seek recourse from anyone, and if he holds the second party liable, he may seek recourse from the first. This opinion is more similar to what is correct. The argument we mentioned for the first opinion has no basis; furthermore, it is invalidated by the case where he hands the deposit to a person as a loan, a gift, or as a deposit for himself. As for handing the deposit to one whose custom is [to safeguard his wealth] among his people, such as his wife or his servant, he is not liable. Ahmad stated this clearly, and it is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. Al-Shafi'i said: He is liable, because he handed the deposit to one whom the owner was not satisfied with, so he became liable, just as if he had handed it to a stranger. Our position is that he safeguarded it in the manner he safeguards his own wealth, so it is similar to if he had safeguarded it himself, and just as if he had handed livestock to a shepherd, or an animal to his servant to water it. It differs from a stranger, as handing it to him is not considered safeguarding it on his part.

The second scenario: If he has an excuse, such as if he intends to travel, or he fears for it while in his possession due to fire, drowning, or other causes, then if he is able to return it to its owner or his agent authorized to receive it, he is not permitted to hand it over to anyone else. If he does so, he is liable, because he handed it to someone other than its owner without permission and without an excuse, so he became liable, just as if he had deposited it in the first scenario. If he is unable to reach the owner or his agent, he may hand it over to the judge (qadi), whether or not he is under the necessity of traveling, because he is a volunteer in holding it, so he is not obligated to