SAFE DEPOSIT COMPANY. A company which maintains vaults for the deposit and safe-keeping of valuables in which compart ments 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 cus tomers; but this custom has been discontin ued since the establishment of companies mak ing that their special business. The relation of the company to the depositor is rather that of bailor and bailee, though it has been said 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 ease of joint renting, cited infra, seems to the con trary. 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 re lation of bailor and bailee; id. 132. This view has been sustained in the courts; Rob erts v. Safe Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 57, 25 N. E. 294, 9 L. R. A. 438, 20 Am. St. 718. In the latter case the plaintiff had an allot ment of space in a storage house for the safe keeping 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 proper ty by theft committed by persons in charge of the building, and the relation of the parties was described by Earl, 3., 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 tamper ed with, it was held to throw upon the com pany 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 deposi tor, the description in which did not actually correspond with the property taken, the com pany was held liable for not resisting so far as it was able to do, and contenting it self with a mere protest; Roberts v. Safe
Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 57, 25 N. E. 291, 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 pri ma facie evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant which demands an explana tion and a prima facie case is made by the bailor when he shows such loss or damage to the chattels as ordinarily does not hap pen if such care as the law requires has been exercised ; Arnot v. Branconier, 14 Mo. App. 431; Collins v. Bennett, 46 N. Y. 490; 9 Harv. L. Rev. 134.
The relation of the renter of a box is that of bailor and bailee; National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead, 250 Ill. 584, 95 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 prop erty of the depositor, and the conclusion from an examination of the subject is thus stated: "The extent of their duty is reached in satis fying 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 trus tee 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 prop erty." 9 Harv. L. Rev. 135. That there can be no garnishment in such case would seem to arise from the principle that to be subject ed to it, a bailee must have more than con structive possession; as, in the case of bag gage 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. Hilson, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 91; and as to a locked trunk deposited in a bank vault in Bottom v. Clarke, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 487.