This paper deals with contract of deposit (depositum) in Roman law and its comparison with the contract of deposit in contemporary Croatian law. Paper shows its development from initial friendly service which was based on the honesty of the parties and was not legally protected, to a legally recognized and protected contract through appropriate mechanisms of legal protection. It is considered to have been developed on the basis of the fiducia cum amico, although the safekeeping in special circumstances was also known to the Laws of the Twelve Tables, which in the case of violation of this relationship provided special lawsuit in duplum. The social relationship has been elevated to the rank of a contract through the activity of praetor who introduced appropriate actions in his edict. Also, there are analysed in more detail the possible objects of the contract and its characteristics. Only movable things could be handed over for safekeeping and also irreplaceable things because other contracts were used for the safekeeping of immovable things. The Roman deposit was real, incomplete bilateral contract bonae fidei, which was in classical era gratuitous contract, but that limitation was abandoned in Justinian's law. Here, it is necessary to emphasize the difference compared to the contemporary contract of deposit which is consensual contract and it could be gratuitous and onerous contract. The paper also discusses rights, obligations and liability of the parties with an emphasis on the principle of utility, according to which the party who has benefits from the contract is responsible for any fault and negligence, and the party who does not benefit from the contract is responsible for dolus and culpa lata. Furthermore, special cases of deposit are examined both in Roman and contemporary Croatian law. In Roman law, these were depositum miserabile, depositum irregulare and depositum in sequestrem and in contemporary law there are deposit in need, irregular deposit and innkeepers’ liability regarding which we see the influence of the Roman deposit because despite some differences between them, there are a lot of common features. Also, we should stress concerning the innkeepers’ liability, which does not have a corresponding pair in the special forms of depositum, that it can be identified with the Roman institute that regulated liability of shipowners, innkeepers and stall owners for damages on passenger’s things, but its application is much wider because it includes not only the catering facility but also various spaces such as cinemas, theatres, hospitals and similar spaces.