There are some principles of every-day importance relating to the
keeping of things.
In our last lecture was mentioned the carriage of merchandise by
common carriers. They not only carry merchandise--they also keep it.
When merchandise reaches its destination and shippers have had a
reasonable time to take it away, but neglect to do so, a common
carrier is no longer liable for its safe keeping as a common carrier
but only as a warehouseman. What do we mean by this? As we have seen,
a common carrier, unless he makes a special contract for carrying the
merchandise, is liable for everything lost or injured except "by the
act of God or the public enemy"; or, as we have already said, he is an
insurer for safely taking and keeping the merchandise while it is in
his charge. When the merchandise has reached the final station, and
the person to whom it is shipped or sent has had ample time to take it
away and does not do so, the carrier still keeps the merchandise in
his warehouse or depot, but he is no longer liable as a carrier for
keeping it but simply as a warehouseman. In other words, if goods are
kept by him for this longer period, he is liable for their loss only
in the event of gross negligence on his part. If a fire should break
out and the goods be burned, unless it happened by his own gross
negligence, he would not be liable for the loss. So, too, if a thief
should break into his warehouse and steal the goods, he would not be
liable for the theft unless it was shown that he was grossly negligent
in not providing a safer building. If the rats and mice should destroy
the goods while they were in the common carrier's building, the same
rule would apply; or if they were injured or destroyed in any other
manner, he would not be responsible for the loss unless gross
negligence was shown.
Different rules apply, depending on whether the keeper, or bailee,
gets any compensation for storage. In our lecture relating to sales we
stated that the seller would not be liable for the loss of anything
intrusted to his keeping after it had been bought of him unless he was
grossly negligent, for the reason that no reward or compensation is
paid to him for storage. There are, therefore, two rules which govern
many cases. If a person keeps a thing for a reward or compensation,
then he is bound by a stricter rule of diligence than in those cases
in which he receives nothing for his service. This accords with the
common reason of mankind. Evidently if a person keeps a thing simply
as an act of kindness, he ought not to be responsible in the same
sense that one is held responsible who is paid a fixed price for such
service.
Another good illustration is that of a bank which keeps the bonds of a
depositor in its safe for his accommodation. The bank does not pretend
to be a safe-deposit company or anything of the kind, but it has a
large vault and wishes to accommodate its customers by keeping their
stocks and bonds and other articles for them while they are off on
vacations or for other reasons. It is a common thing for a customer to
go to his bank, especially in the country, and ask the cashier to keep
his valuables during his absence. The cashier is willing to comply,
and the things are intrusted to him; but as the bank receives no
compensation for this service it is not responsible for their loss
unless it is grossly negligent in the matter. Suppose they are put in
the safe among other valuables belonging to the bank and a robber
breaks in and takes them away--is the bank responsible? Certainly not.
On the other hand, if the customer should leave his valuables at a
safe-deposit company, a different rule would apply, because that
company charges him for keeping the articles. It is therefore bound by
a stricter rule than the bank. It must use the greatest care, and if
neglectful in any respect it is responsible for the consequences.
Suppose a person should say to me: "Will you be good enough to leave
this package with a jeweller on your way down street?" I say to my
friend: "Certainly, with the greatest pleasure." What degree of care
must I use in carrying that package? Only ordinary care. Suppose in
going along the street a thief, without my knowledge, should walk
beside me and slip his hand into my pocket and take the package, and
on my arrival at the jewellery store I should find that it was gone.
Should I be responsible for the loss? Certainly not, because I had
neither received nor expected to receive any reward for taking the
package to the store. Of course, if it could be shown that I was
unnecessarily negligent in carrying the parcel, the owner might be
justified in claiming damages.
One thing more may be added. If a bailee should be a scoundrel and
sell the thing left with him for safe-keeping and receive the money,
the true owner could, nevertheless, claim the thing wherever he could
find it. The owner would not get a good title. This rule of law
applies to everything except negotiable paper. A person who buys that
in good faith, honestly, not knowing that it was stolen, and pays
money, gets a good title. _This is the only exception to the above
rule in the law._