Court Opinion

ID: 6543335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:17:34.74569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:53.725552
License: Public Domain

Hughes, J., (after stating the facts.) This is a case of bailment for a consideration received by the bailee, who was bound to exercise ordinary care and diligence to preserve and restore the property delivered by the bailor to the bailee, or to some one who was authorized by the bailor to receive it. The property was not so delivered by the bailee, but was delivered to another, who was not authorized to receive it. The bailee knew the bailor and his property w;ell, and testified : ‘‘If I had looked at the party who presented the check, I would have known he was not entitled to the package.” The check was a means of identification of the property, but was no evidence that the owner of the property had parted with his title to it, or that he had authorized its delivery to any one who might- present the check, though not entitled to receive it. Where property is committed to the custody of a bailee for safe keeping, it is the bailee’s duty to use ordinary care and diligence to keep the property safely, and if it is lost through the failure on his part to do so, he is liable. A negligent delivery of the property by him to another, whereby it is lost to the owner, will not relieve him from liability. Had the bailee not previously known the bailor and the property, there might have been some excuse for delivery of the property to the person who presented the check for it, though he was not entitled to receive it; but such a case is not presented or decided here. It seems that, though the bailor was not as prudent as he ought to have been, yet the bailee might have avoided the loss by the exercise of ordinary care, which is such care as a prudent man would exercise, under like circumstances, to protect his own interest. The instructions numbered one, two and three, refused, ignored the negligence of the superintendent, Clark, and were properly refused. The fourth, refused, does not seem objectionable, but the refusal of it was not prejudicial, as the evidence clearly shows that the property was lost through the want of ordinary care upon the part of the bailee. The judgment is affirmed.