Зображення сторінки
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

(132 Tenn. 620, 179 8. W. 148.) in the case of Cicalla . Rossi, 10 quarrels with the very ground of Heisk. 67. In that case money was liability of the bailee assumed by the subject-matter of bailment for that court that the mere act of accommodation, the contract of parting with possession, without auwhich was evidenced hy a written thority, to a third person for a conand signed memorandum as follows: summation of the delivery, would "Received from Giovanni Rossi the

constitute a conversion. Moreover, sum of $550 for safe keeps until he Woodward explains that the bookcall for it.”

keeper was more than ordinarily The bailee, Cicalla, instead of busy with his own duties, it being keeping the money in his immediate near the close of the month, when he possession, deposited it in his own was engrossed with his work as acname in a bank in the city of Mem countant. phis that he considered safe, but Much stress is laid upon the fact which later failed. The court, on that the funds were allowed to rethe question of a conversion on the main in the safe until up into the part of the bailee by reason of his second day, especially in view of the making such a deposit, said: “The fact that Ridenour had informed material point of controversy, and Woodward that he was drawing the one upon which the case should checks upon the deposit thus to be turn, is whether or not the defend- built up. If the fund was not one ant, in depositing the money in bank converted by the act of the placing in his own name, acted in accordance of it in the safe of another, this later with the consent of the plaintiff, ei

circumstance would seem to be one ther expressly given or fairly to be only to be looked to in ascertaining implied from the circumstances and

the degree of care taken by the conversation had at the time."

bailee. Did he hold the funds so Applying these principles to the

long as to reach to gross negligence facts of the pending case: We think

on his part? it manifest that Woodward acted

It seems to us that in fairness the with a fairly commensurate discre

bailors must be deemed to have tion when he placed the money and checks of the bailors

known that Woodward's first duty, Bailmentkratuitousin the iron safe for

on the day succeeding the deposit in liability for safe-keeping,

and

the safe, was to his own employers, that by fair infer

[ocr errors]

and that his service for their acence from all of the circumstances

commodation must have been acthat action was in the interest of the cepted with the tacit understanding bailors, and consented to by them.

that Woodward's time was not his They, themselves, in similar circum own. Was it reasonable for them to stances, had made like deposits in demand or expect that Woodward safes in Jellico overnight, which fact should give over carrying out his was known to Woodward at the time employers' schedule, mapped out for of the lodgment here in question. him for Tuesday, in order that the Kirtland v. Montgomery, i Swan, deposit should reach the bank be452, 458.

fore Wednesday? We think not. The court of civil appeals was of

Clear it is that a case of gross negthe opinion that there was no excuse ligence is not made out. for Woodward not having the book

The decree of the Court of Civil keeper of Hackney & Company get Appeals is reversed; decree here the money on Tuesday morning, and dismissing the bill of complaint at deliver it to the bank. But this

But this complainants' cost.

loss.

ANNOTATION.

Duty and liability of gratuitous bailee or mandatary. I. Introduction, 1196.

IV.-continued. II. Liability for nonfeasance, 1196.

b. Right of bailee to terminate bailIII. Liability for misfeasance; degree of

ment, 1225. care or skill required:

c. Effect of delay in returning a. In general, 1197.

property, 1225.
b. Instances of failure to exercise
requisite care, 1216.

V. Liability of bailee or mandatary who c. Instances in which requisite care

has exceeded or disregarded his inhas been held to have been

structions, 1225. exercised, 1218.

VI. Liability of bailee who has used subIV. Duty to return or account for prop

ject of bailment for own purposes, erty:

1228. a. In general, 1224.

VII. Summary, 1228. As to what amounts to delivery of, II. Liability for nonfeasance. or assumption of control over, prop- One who has promised to care, witherty essential to a bailment, see anno- out reward, for property subsequently tation in 1 A.L.R. 394.

to be intrusted to him, or to do some 1. Introduction.

act without compensation, is not lia

ble for a failure to enter upon the perAccording to the long-established formance of his undertaking, such system of classification borrowed from

promise being, in the eye of the law, the civil law, gratuitous bailments are of two kinds; depositum, which is a

unsupported by any consideration, delivery of personal property to the

Melbourne v. Louisville & N. R. Co. bailee for safe-keeping, and manda

(1889) 88 Ala. 443, 6 So. 762; Evan

L. Reed Mfg. Co. v. Wurts (1914) 187 tum, which approaches very nearly to

Ill. App. 378; Jenkins v. Bacon (1873) a gratuitous agency, the delivery of

111 Mass. 373, 15 Am. Rep. 33, 1 Am. the property to the bailee being mere

Neg. Cas. 781; Rutgers v. Lucet (1800) ly incidental to some service which is

2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 92; Thorne v. to be performed in respect thereto.

Deas (1809) 4 Johns (N. Y.) 84; WilAlthough both kinds of bailment are

kinson v. Coverdale (1793) 1 Esp. ostensibly governed by the same rules,

(Eng.) 73; Johnston V. Graham and are usually treated as indistin

(1863) 14 U. C. C. P. 9; Baxter v. guishable, a mandatary is apt to be

Jones held to a stricter degree of responsi- Young v. Atwood (1821) Newfoundl.

(1903) 6 Ont. L. Rep. 360; bility than a mere depositary, for rea

Sel. Cas. 233. sons which will presently appear.

Thus, one who undertakes, without The duties of gratuitous bailees or

reward, to procure insurance for anmandataries may, for the purpose of

other, is not liable for his omission to this discussion, be divided into two

do so. Thorne v. Deas (1809) 4 Johns. classes: Duties of relative obligation,

(N. Y.) 84; Young v. Attwood (Newwhich are, the duty to exercise the de

foundl.) supra. gree of care in keeping the deposit, or

But while a mere agreement to unthe duty to exercise the degree of skill

dertake a trust in futuro, without comin executing the mandate, requisite to constitute a performance by the bailee

pensation, is not obligatory, yet, when

once undertaken and the trust actualof the terms, expressed or implied, of his undertaking; and duties of ab- ly entered upon, the bailee is bound to solute obligation, which are, the duty perform it according to the terms of to return or account for the subject his agreement. The confidence which of the bailment, to conform to and not is placed in him, and his undertaking to exceed the instructions of the bail- to execute the trust, raise a sufficient vr, and not to use the subject of the consideration; a

contrary doctrine bailment for his own purposes.

would tend to injure and deceive his

employer, who might be unwilling to bound to use prudence in administra-
consent to the bailment on any other tion only, and cannot be held liable
terms. Rutgers v. Lucet (1800) 2 for losses against which such adminis-
Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 92; Jenkins v. tration could not avail. Bataille v.
Bacon (1873) 111 Mass. 373, 15 Am. Ribet (1883) 35 La. Ann. 1203.
Rep. 33, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 781.

A gratuitous agent may be liable for

misfeasance or malfeasance. Young ul. Liability for misfeasance; degree of

v. Attwood (1821) Newfoundl. Sel. care or skill required.

Cas. 233. a. In general.

So, although there is no considera

tion for one party's undertaking to Not liable for loss without fault.

procure insurance for another, yet It is a judicial commonplace that a

where he proceeds to carry his undergratuitous bailee or mandatary is not

taking into effect by getting a policy liable for a loss or destruction of the

underwritten, but does it so negligentsubject-matter of the bailment with

ly or unskilfully that the party inout his fault. See, inter alia, Levy v.

sured derives no benefit from it, he is Bergeron (1868) 20 La. Ann. 290;

liable. Wilkinson v. Coverdale (1793) Lampley v. Scott (1852) 24 Miss. 528;

1 Esp. (Eng.) 75; Johnston v. Graham McKay y. Hamblin (1866) 40 Miss.

(1863) 14 U. C. C. P. 9; Evan L. Reed 472; Anderson v. Foresman (1834)

Mfg. Co. v. Wurts (1914) 187 Ill. App. Wright (Ohio) 598, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 378. 813; Danville Bank v. Waddill (1879)

Thus, an insurance agent who has 31 Gratt (Va.) 469; Bullen v. Swan

gratuitously undertaken to have an Electric Engraving Co. (1906) 22

additional policy placed on the plainTimes L. R. (Eng.) 275, appeal dis

tiff's property, and to notify the commissed in (1907) 23 Times L. R. 258;

panies already holding policies of this Leggo V. Welland Vale Mfg. Co.

additional insurance, is liable for a (1901) 2 Ont. L. Rep. 45.

loss resulting from his failure to give
In Foster v. Essex Bank (1821) 17 such notice. Baxter v. Jones (1903) 6
Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. 168, 1 Am. Neg. Ont. L. Rep. 360.
Cas. 502, it is said that the dictum of

And one who has gratuitously unLord Coke that the bare acceptance of dertaken to obtain insurance for angoods to keep implies a promise to other is liable for any damage resultkeep them safely, so that the deposit ing from his failure to do so, if, after ary will be liable for loss by theft or

entering upon such undertaking, he accident, is entirely exploded, such abandons or neglects his performance. dictum, and the decision on which it

Vickery v. Lanier (1858) 1 Met. (Ky.) is based, having been fully and ex

133. plicitly overruled by all the judges, in

Is liable only for gross negligence or the case of Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2

bad faith.
Ld. Raym. 913, 92 Eng. Reprint, 107,
5 Eng. Rul, Cas. 247, 1 Am. Neg. Cas.

Although differing as to what the

expression connotes, and sometimes 948. The gratuitous depositary of funds

characterizing it as "an inapt, but ap

parently settled phrase" (see Gottlieb is not liable for their depreciation

v. Wallace Wall Paper Co. (1913) 156 where the bailor has the same oppor

App. Div. 150, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1032), tunity and facilities to inform himself

the courts are practically united in deof such depreciation. Richardson v. claring that a gratuitous bailee is liaFutrell (1869) 42 Miss. 525.

ble, so far as the failure to exercise The depositary of bank notes is not care is concerned, only for gross negliable for their depreciation in value ligence. unless it has proceeded from his fault, United States.-First Nat. Bank v. or has occurred after he was in de Graham (1880) 100 U. S. 699, 25 L. fault to restore the deposit. Berard ed, 750, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 588; Preston v. Boagni (1878) 30 La. Ann. 1125. v. Prather (1890) 137 U. S. 604, 34 L.

An agent without compensation is ed. 788, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 162, 1 Am.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

Neg. Rep. 599; Tracy v. Wood (1822) Ind. 315, 65 Am. Dec. 761; Bronnen3 Mason, 132, Fed. Cas. No. 14,130. buge v. Sharman (1881) 80 Ind. 475.

Alabama. Stewart Frazier Kansas. Johnson V. Reynolds (1843) 5 Ala. 114; Haynie v. Waring (1865) 3 Kan. 257; Hale v. Rawallie (1.836) 29 Ala. 263; Henry v, Porter (1871) 8 Kan. 136, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. (1871) 46 Ala. 293, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 493; Lobenstein v. Pritchett (1871) 8 715; Prince v. Alabama State Fair Kan. 213, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 769. (1898) 106 Ala. 340, 28 L.R.A. 716, 17 Kentucky.-Sodowsky v. M'Farland 3o. 449.

(1835) 3 Dana, 204; Bakewell v. TalArkansas, Lyon v. Tams (1850) bot (1836) 4 Dana, 217; Green v. Hol11 Ark. 189; Cullridge V. Howard lingsworth (1837) 5 Dana, 174, 30 Am. (1861) 23 Ark. 61, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. Dec. 680, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 771; United 752; Wear v. Gleason (1889) 52 Ark. Soc. v. Underwood (1873) 9 Bush, 609, 304, 20 Am. St. Rep. 186, 12 S. W. 756; 15 Am. Rep. 731; TREVATHAN v. FARMSt. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Hen- ERS BANK (reported herewith) ante, son (1895) 61 Ark. 302, 32 S. W. 1079, 1180. 13 Am. Neg. Cas. 246; Baker v. Bailey Maine.-Storer v. Gowen (1841) 18 (1912) 103 Ark. 12, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) Me. 174; Knowles v. Atlantic & St. L. 1085, 145 S. W. 532; St. Louis, I. M. & R. Co. (1854) 38 Me. 55, 61 Am. Dec. S. R. Co. v. Miller (1912) 103 Ark. 37, 234. 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 634, 145 S. W. 889.

Massachusetts. Foster v. Essex California.-Davis v. National Lum- Bank (1821) 17 Mass. 479, 9 Am. Dec. ber Co. (1913) 22 Cal. App. 111, 133 168, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 502; Smith v. Pac. 509.

First Nat. Bank (1868) 99 Mass. 605, Dakota.-Whiting v. Chicago, M. & 97 Am. Dec. 59, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 523. St. P. R. Co. (1888) 5 Dak. 90, 37 N. Michigan. -- Barrows v. Cushway W. 222.

(1877) 37 Mich. 481; Marshall v. PonDelaware. Chase v. Maberry tiac, O. & N. R. Co. (1901) 126 Mich. (1840) 3 Harr. 266.

45, 55 L.R.A. 650, 85 N. W. 242. Florida.- O'Brien v. Vaill (1886) 22 Mississippi. – Lampley Scott Fla. 627, 1 Am. St. Rep. 219, 1 So. 137. (1852) 24 Miss. 528; McKay v. HamGeorgia. McNabb v. Lockhart

blin (1866) 40 Miss. 472; Richardson (1855) 18 Ga. 495, 1 Am. Neg. Cas.

v. Futrell (1869) 42 Miss. 525; Illinois 754; Self v. Dunn (1871) 42 Ga. 528,

C. R. Co. v. Trontine (1887) 64 Miss. 5 Am. Rep. 544 (following Code provi

834, 2 So. 255. sion); Stewart v. Head (1883) 70 Ga.

Missouri.--McLean

V. Rutherford 449 (following Code provision); Mer- (1843) 8 Mo. 109; Graves v. Poage chants Nat. Bank v. Guilmartin (1893)

(1852) 17 Mo. 91, 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 93 Ga. 503, 44 Am. St. Rep. 182, 21 S. 670; Wiser v. Chesley (1873) 53 Mo. E. 55.

547; E. 0. Stanard Mill Co. v. White Illinois.-Marine Bank v. Rushmore Line Central & Transit Co. (1894) 122 (1862) 28 Ill. 463; Michigan C. R. Co. Mo. 258, 26 S. W. 704; Woolf v. Bernv. Carrow (1874) 73 Ill. 348, 24 Am. ero (1883) 14 Mo. App. 518, 1 Am. Rep. 248; Hindman v. Borders (1878) Neg. Cas. 911; Hapgood Plow Co. v. 89 Ill. 336; Gray v. Merriam (1893) Wabash R. Co. (1895) 61 Mo. App. 148 Ill. 179, 32 L.R.A. 769, 39 Am. St. 372; Mason y. St. Louis Union Stock Rep. 172, 35 N. E. 810, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. Yards Co. (1894) 60 Mo. App. 93; Mc478; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Tyler (1894) Kenna v. Walker (1900) 85 Mo. App. 54 Ill. App. 97; M. Kenny Transfer Co. 570; King v. Exchange Bank (1904) v. Mayer Bros. Co. (1912) 170 Ill. App. 106 Mo. App. 1, 78 S. W. 1038; Levi v. 607; Smith v. Fligel (1914) 185 Ill. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. (1911) 157 App. 359; Glende v. Spraner (1916) Mo. App. 536, 138 S. W. 699; Sails v. 198 Ill. App. 584.

Funk (1913) 175 Mo. App. 500, 161 S. Indiana.—Dart v. Lowe (1854) 5 W. 1175; Adler v. Planters' Hotel Co. Ind. 131, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 891; Kemp v. (1916) Mo. App. -, 181 S. W. 106 Farlow (1854) 5 Ind. 462, 1 Am. Neg. Nebraska. Burk v. Dempster Cas. 767; Conner v. Winton (1856) 8 (1892) 34 Neb. 426, 51 N. W. 976; Bis.

sell v. Harris (1901) 1 Neb. (Unof.) 535, 95 N. W. 779.

New Hampshire.--Brown V. Grand Trunk R. Co. (1874) 54 N. H. 535.

New Jersey.-Dudley v. Camden & P. Ferry Co. (1880) 42 N. J. L. 25, 36 Am. Rep. 501.

New York.-Edson v. Weston (1827) 7 Cow, 278; Beardslee v. Richardson (1833) 11 Wend. 25, 25 Am. Dec. 596; First Nat. Bank v. Ocean Nat. Bank (1875) 60 N. Y. 278, 19 Am. Rep. 181; Pattison v. Syracuse Nat. Bank (1880) 80 N. Y. 82, 36 Am. Rep. 582; Ouderkirk v. Central Nat. Bank (1890) 119 N. Y. 263, 23 N. E. 875; Harter v. Blanchard (1873) 64 Barb. 617; Jackson v. Eighmie (1887) 10 N. Y. S. R. 359; Hoffman v. Roessle (1902) 39 Misc. 787, 81 N. Y. Supp. 291; Patriska v, Kronk (1908) 57 Misc. 552, 109 N. Y. Supp. 1092; Di Dio v. Robino (1909) 116 N. Y. Supp. 702; Gottlieb v, Wallace Wall Paper Co. (1913) 156 App. Div, 150, 140 N. Y. Supp. 1032; Goldseiger v. Balik (1914) 147 N. Y. Supp. 148; Wechsler v. Picard Importing Co. (1916) 94 Misc. 157, 157 N. Y. Supp. 803; Workingman's Club v. Boguszewski (1916) 161 N. Y. Supp. 382.

North Carolina.-Patterson v. McIver (1884) 90 N. C. 493; State's Prison v. Hoffman (1912) 159 N. C. 564, 76 S. E. 3; Perry v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. (1916) 171 N. C. 158, L.R.A. 1916E, 478, 88 S. E. 156.

Ohio.-Montieth v. Bissell (1833) Wright, 411; Grant v. Ludlow (1857) 8 Ohio St. 1; Griffith v. Zipperwick (1876) 28 Ohio St. 388, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 545; Torbet v, Young (1915) 24 Ohio C. C. N, S. 97.

Pennsylvania.-Tompkins v. Saltmarsh (1826) 14 Serg. & R. 275; 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 814; Lancaster County Nat. Bank v. Smith (1869) 62 Pa. 47, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 570; First Nat. Bank v, Graham (1875) 79 Pa. 106, 21 Am. Rep. 49; First Nat. Bank v. Rex (1879) 89 Pa. 308, 33 Am. Rep. 767; Hofford v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. (1910) 43 Pa. Super. Ct. 310; Hirsh v. Anderson Hotel Co. (1914) 58 Pa. Super, Ct. 387.

South Carolina.-Ulmer V. Ulmer (1820) 2 Nott & lI'C. 489; Glover v. Burbridge (1887) 27 S. C. 305, 3 S. E. 471, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 821.

Tennessee. Jenkins Motlow (1853) 1 Sneed, 248, 60 Am. Dec, 154; Colyar v. Taylor (1860) 1 Coldw. 372, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 825; Whitemore v. Haroldson (1879) 2 Lea, 312; Tulane Hotel Co. v. Holohan (1903) 112 Tenn. 214, 105 Am. St. Rep. 930, 79 S. W. 113, 2 Ann. Cas. 345, 15 Am. Neg. Rep. 719; Marshall v. Nashville R. & Light Co. (1907) 118 Tenn. 254, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1246, 101 S. W. 419, 12 Ann. Cas. 675.

Texas.-Fulton v. Alexander (1858) 21 Tex. 148, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 836: Texas C. R. Co. v. Flanary (1898) Tex. Civ. App. —, 45 S. W. 214, subsequent appeal in (1899) 50 S. W. 726.

Utah.--Lawrence v. Howard (1874) 1 Utah, 142.

Vermont.--Carpenter v. Branch (1841) 13 Vt. 161, 37 Am. Dec. 587, : Am. Neg. Cas. 736; Spooner v. Mattoon (1868) 40 Vt. 300, 94 Am. Dec. 395.

Virginia.—Tancil v. Seaton (1877) 28 Gratt. 601, 26 Am. Rep. 380; Carrington v. Ficklin (1880) 32 Gratt. 670; Yates v. Ley (1917) 121 Va. 265, 92 S. E. 837.

Washington. - Bradford - Kennedy Co. v. Buchanan (1916) 91 Wash. 539, 158 Pac. 76.

Wisconsin.--Jones v. Parish (1845) 1 Pinney, 494, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 848; Minor v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (1865) 19 Wis. 41, 88 Am. Dec. 670.

England.-Coggs v. Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 909, 92 Eng. Reprint, 107, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 247, 1 Am. Neg. Cas. 948; Beauchamp v. Powley (1831) 1 Moody & R. 38; Doorman v. Jenkins (1834) 2 Ad. & El. 256, 111 Eng. Reprint, 99, 4 L. J. K. B. N. S. 29, 4 Nev. & M. 170.

Canada.-Palin v. Reid (1885) 10 Ont. App. Rep. 63; Leggo v. Welland Vale Mfg. Co. (1901) 2 Ont. L. Rep. 45; Carlisle v. Grand Trunk R. Co. (1912) 25 Ont. L. Rep. 372, 8 D. L. R. 130.

A variant form of expression is that gratuitous bailee is responsible only for gross negligence, or bad faith, or breach of good faith.

United States.--Eldridge V. Hill (1877) 97 U. S. 92, 24 L. ed. 970. Alabama.-Thomag

V.

Hackney (1915) 192 Ala. 27, 68 So, 296.

« НазадПродовжити »