Security Storage & Trust Co. v. Martin

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In this case the appellee recovered in the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City a judgment against the appellant, the Security Storage & Tiust Co., for the loss of certain United States Victory Bonds that she had placed in a safe deposit box in the vault of the appellant, which she had rented from it, and which bonds, as claimed by her, were abstracted therefrom as a result of the negligence and default of the appellant in not using ordinary care and dili ⁵⁴³ gence in guarding and safekeeping the contents of said box. It is from that judgment the appeal in this case is taken. In the trial of the case but one exception was taken, and that relates to the rulings of the court upon the prayers.

The plaintiff offered five prayers. The first, second and third were granted. The other two were rejected. The defendant likewise offered five prayers, and all were granted except the first, which asked for a directed verdict against the plaintiff, because of the alleged want of evidence legally sufficient to go to the jury.

This prayer was refused. The appellee testified that, on the 14th day of September, 1920, she was the owner of United States Victory Bonds to the amount of $'850, which she had bought from the1 Eutaw Savings Bank. That she was then, and had been since 1905, a renter of a safe deposit box in the vault of the appellant. After deciding that she would increase the amount of the bonds to the sum of seven hundred dollars and deposit them in her safe deposit box, she went on the day named to the Eutaw Savings Bank, and got the bonds that she had bought and left there.

From there she went to the Drovers & Mechanics National Bank and exchanged the fifty dollar bond for a bond of one hundred dollars, by paying to the bank the sum of fifty dollars. After getting said bond she put it with the others in her hand-hag and walked to the comer of Fayette and Eutaw Streets, at which point she took a car and rode to the corner of North and Guilford Avenues., and from there she walked over to the Security Storage & Trust Oo., located on the -south side of North Avenue, just west of Obarles Street That while on the car she put her hand in her handbag to “be sure they (the bonds) were there, she had nothing else in there, she had gone for the one purpose to get these bonds.” Upon leaving the oar .she went immediately to the Security Storage & Trust Oo. and finding the doors open, she entered its vault. In it she found two men, one of whom was an employee of the company, who afterwards waited npon her and whose name she was told was Smith. She ⁵⁴⁴ said to him that she wished to put some papers in her bo's, whereupon he got the master key that was held by the company, and with it and the key in her possession, which she handed to him, he opened the door of the locker and pulled her box out.

She at the time told Mm that she would put the “papers” in iit without going to the booth, and while the young man held the box, she lifted its lid and put the bonds, which were rolled up in such a way a® not to disclose what they were, in the box. That when she put them in the box the lid was a “little hard to push down,” due to the fact that the ■bonds were in a roll and the box shallow. The young man, while she was still in the vault, put the box in the locker and as she supposed “locked the locker securely.” He then handed to her' her key. The other man at the time was at the end of the vault.

She next returned to the vault on the 6th of October of the same year, to> out the coupons. She was by herself. The same gentleman who had waited upon her on September 14th accompanied her to the vault, and the door of the locker was again opened in the same manner that it had been opened on the previous occasion. But tMs time she took the box and went into the booth.

When she got- into the booth she discovered, upon opening the lid, that the bonds were gpne. She was so confounded and confused that she went straight to her little apartment on Maryland Avenue, not far from the Security Storage and Trust Company, and there she looked into her hand-bag for the bonds, but as she1 says, “of course she did not find them.” She said nothing .to the company about the loss of the bonds before going to her home, but upon her return to the Security S'to-rage & Trust Co., after being absent about fifteen minutes, she talked with Mr. Bucher, its treasurer, and told Mm of the loss of the bonds; He went with her to the vault, pulled her box out and looked through it, and looked also among his own securities for the bonds, but could not find them. He then told her to get the numbers of her bonds. She also testified that she could not recall ever seeing a watchman at the Security Storage & Trust Co.; that anyone ⁵⁴⁵ behind the counter in the office would wait on her, and she was not always admitted to the vault- by the same clerk.

That upon the suggestion of Mr. Bucher, she obtained the numbers of the bonds from the Eutaw Savings Bank, and then, in an effort to locate the bonds she wrote to Washington, and in reply to her letter, the Register of the Treasury wrote her on December 21, 1920, that the records of the office did not indicate that the coupons on the bonds had been received in the office for registration, and that she would be notified if any of them were presented for payment. Later the attorneys for the appellants also wrote to the authorities in Washington, to get information as to the bonds. In response to this letter, written on February 23rd, 1923, they received a letter from O. N. McGxoarty, Chief Division of Loan .and Currency, in which they were told that the coupons from some, if not all, of the bonds had been received, some so late as August, 1921, showing that at such, time the bonds were still in existence and not destroyed. The appellee further testified that, upon failure to locate the bonds, she upon several occasions, called upon Mr. Bucher and also Mr. King, president of the appellant company.

On one occasion she said to the latter that the, bonds that were lost were intended for her declining years,, but that she had found that she would have to use them to defray the charges of an anticipated surgical operation on her, and now that the money was gone, she would be without means to pay such charges and consequently she would have, to forego- having the operation performed. She was then asked by him, “What church do you attend ?” and when she replied to this question he said, “Why don’t you ask, them to help you ?” to which she replied, it was against her instincts to do so. In her evidence is also found' the statement that on one of her visits to the company’s place of business,, when accompanied by Mrs. Cooksey, she saw Mr. King, who called to his office two young men, and he asked her if she could identify the young man who was present, oh the occasion ⁵⁴⁶ when she put the bond® in the box, whereupon she readily identified one of them as that person, and to* him she said: “Don’t you remember my going in and my putting those papers in the box and you helping me to close the lid?” “No,” he said, “I don’t remember, you come here so often.” It was, however, admitted by the company that appellee was in the vault on September 14th, 1920. The witness also said that she was not always called upon to sdgp. a book registering her entrance into the vault, as required under the rules of the company.

She also stated that the locker containing her box could not be opened with her key alone, but that both it, and the master key kept by the company, had to be inserted in the lock, but which was first inserted, she could not say; that there Was always somebody from the company with her when she entered the vault, to help her, she would give to such party her key and he would open the locker and take out the box and hand it to her, and that when she finished with the box she would hand it back to 'him and he would put it back in the steel receptacle, after which the door would bei locked and her key pulled out and given to* her. She always* supposed that (the box was locked, but did not look to see — took it for granted, as her key could not be removed from the door until the door was locked. Mrs. Nellie Young, a witness produced by the plaintiff, testified that she had a box in the appellant’s vault and that on one occasion she went to* the vault, where the locker was opened by an employee of the company by the use of the* master key and her key, and the box handed to her. She went with the box to the booth, leaving the door of the locker open with the key in it so that she, when she had finished with the box could put it in the locker, close the door, lock it, and take her key from it without troubling the young man.

When she returned from the booth to the vault with her box, she found the door of the locker from which her box had been withdrawn closed and the key out of it, although, as she ⁵⁴⁷ stated, she had left the door open with the key in it. When the young man came into the vault she asked him what had become of her locker and he replied, “I expect I sold your box while you were in the booth.” This was found to' be true; while she was in the booth he had disposed of the locker in which her box had been kept and had given the party hex key, which had been left in the door. The locker had been disposed of to such party and she had been given but one key thereto, the other key still being in the possession of Mrs. Young. Whether the party was told of this fact or not, is not disclosed by the evidence, hut thereafter Mrs. Young was asked to call her daughter up over the ’phone and tell her to deliver to the messenger, that was to be sent by tbe company for it, the other key held by her, which was at her home.

This left Mrs. Young without a locker in which to put her box, and it appears that they were not at the time able to provide ber with another, and she therefore was required to wait until late in the afternoon of that day before another locker was assigned to' her. In the meantime the contents of her box was left in the possession of the company. It was also disclosed by the evidence that the keys to the unused lockers were kept within the vault accessible to the employees of the company and were there kept until the box was rented. Allowing the key of the unused box to remain in such place until the box Was rented