Safe Deposit Company

A company which maintains vaults for the deposit and safe-keeping of valuables in which compartments or boxes are rented to customers who have exclusive access thereto, subject to the oversight and under the rules and regulations of the company. It was formerly the custom for banks to accept gratuitously the custody of boxes containing securities for their customers; but this custom has been discontinued since the establishment of companies making that their special business. The relation that there is a resemblance to the relation of landlord and tenant, but that it exists merely in form; 9 Harv. L. Rev. 131; but a case of joint renting, cited infra, seems to the contrary. The reasons given for the relation of bailor and bailee are that by analogy to the case of an agreement for board and lodging, there is no interest acquired by the depositor in the real estate, and the agreement of the company for safe-keeping established the relation of bailor and bailee; id. 132. This view has been sustained in the courts; Roberts v. Safe Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 57, 25 N. E. 294, 9 L. R. A. 438, 20 Am. St. Rep. 718. In the latter case the plaintiff had an allotment of space in a storage house for the safekeeping of household furniture under an agreement that the same would be securely kept and guarded. The action was brought to recover damages for the loss of the property by theft committed by persons in charge of the building, and the relation of the parties was described by Earl, J., as “a species of bailment like that existing in the case of a depositor in a safe deposit company who hires a box for his valuables and keeps the key.” In such case he says further, that the company, without special contract, would be held to at least ordinary care, the duty of which would arise from the nature of the business and the relation of the parties. From this relation springs naturally the obligation and liability of the company, and where the contract was that the depositor was to “keep a constant and adequate guard and watch over and upon the safe,” and the bonds were stolen, there being no evidence that the vault was broken or the lock tampered with, it was held to throw upon the company the burden of showing whether it was guilty of negligence, and that question was properly left to the jury; Safe Deposit Co. of Pittsburgh v. Pollock, 85 Pa. 391, 27 Am. Rep. 660. Where property was taken from the safe under a search warrant against the depositor, the description in which did not actually correspond with the property taken, the company was held liable for not resisting so far as it was able to do, and contenting itself with a mere protest; Roberts v. Safe Deposit Co., 123 N. Y.. 57, 25 N. E. 294, 9 L. R. A. 438, 20 Am. St. Rep. 718. The burden of proof in actions against such, companies for damages on account of negligence is, in accordance with the general rule in similar cases, upon the plaintiff unless, as in the Pennsylvania case above cited, there is prir ma facie evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant which demands an explanation and a prirna facie case is made by the bailor when he shows such loss or damage to the chattels as ordinarily does not happen if such care as the law requires has been exercised; Arnot v. Branconier, 14 Mo. The relation of the renter of a box is that of bailor and bailee; National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 250 111. 5S4, 05 N. E. 973, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 430; or that of a landlord of an office building and his tenant; People ex rel. Glynn v. Deposit Co., 159 App. Div. 98, 143 N. Y. Supp. 849. An important question arises as to the position and duty of the company where legal proceedings are taken against the property of the depositor, and the conclusion from an examination of the subject is thus stated: “The extent of their duty is reached in satisfying themselves beyond question that the process is legal and regular; and that, this being so, the company is exempt from all responsibility for the subsequent acts of the officer under it;... that the company cannot be subjected to garnishment or trustee process; that the only process by which property deposited with it can be reached is through seizure by the sheriff under direct attachment; also that the company is not liable for property of third persons taken from the safe of the debtor, either as his property or because confused with this property.” 9 Harv. L. Rev. 135. That there can be no garnishment in such case would seem to arise from the principle that to be subjected to it, a bailee must have more than constructive possession; as, in the case of baggage in transportation, horses in a livery stable, etc.; Waples, Attachment § 453. The point was directly decided with respect to a safe deposit company in Gregg v. Hi Ison, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 91; and as to a locked trunk deposited in a bank vault in Bottom v. Clarke, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 487. It is held contra that a safe deposit company may be garnished for the contents of a sealed package in the box of a customer although it is ignorant of the contents, if the statute provides a method by which the court can ascertain such contents; Tillingliast v. Johnson, 34 R. I. 136, 82 Atl. 788. The property in the safe may be seized under a direct attachment; U. S. v. Graff, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 304; Roberts v. Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 57, 25 N. E. 294, 9 L. R. A. 438, 20 Am. St Rep. 718. The officer may be directed in the order of attachment to open the safe, and tfye company's officer^ may be required to give such assistance as will not lead to a breach of trust; 9 Harv. L. Rev. 139. It has been held that an officer may force the door of a warehouse if refused admittance by those in charge of it; Burton v. Wilkinson, 18 Vt 186, 46 Am. Dec. 145; and in the case of a safe deposit company the officers and representatives of the company were not allowed to be present at the time of the opening of the safe by the sheriff; U. S. v. Graff, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 304. In case of a Joint rental of a safe by two or more persons, they were treated as coown name was held to inure to the benefit of the co-tenants; Hackett v. Patterson, 16 N. Y. Supp. 170. Where one co-tenant abstracted, without authority, a stock certificate and transferred it to an innocent purchaser for value, it was held that it had not been intrusted to the possession of the wrongdoer either directly or by implication, and he was not authorized to remove it from the box and the transfer passed no title; Bangor Electric Light & P. Co. v. Robinson, 52 Fed. 520. A state may regulate the incidents of distribution of property within the state belonging to decedents and prescribe times and conditions for delivery thereof by safe deposit companies; and a statute operating to seal safe deposit boxes for a reasonable period after the death of the renter, is not unconstitutional; nor can a surviving joint renter of such box object, the statute having been in force when the contract was made; Nat. Safe Dep. Co. v. Stead, Atty.-Gen. of 111., 232 U. S. 58, 34 Sup. Ct. 209, 58 L. Ed., affirming 250 111. 584, 95 N. E. 973, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 430.