Cussen v. Southern California Savings Bank
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.
—Defendant carried on a safe-deposit business. Plaintiff rented a safe in its deposit-vaults for the period of one year, and deposited therein a sum of money. Upon a subsequent visit to the vaults he discovered that $560 of his money had been abstracted. He has recovered judgment against defendant for that amount, and this appeal is taken from that judgment.
The relation between these parties was that of bailor and bailee. The defendant was a depositary for hire. (Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co., 123 N. Y. 57; 1 Lockwood v. Manhattan Storage Co., 50 N. Y. Supp. 974; 28 App. Div. 68.)…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Claflin v. . MeyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Preston v. PratherSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Gray v. MerriamIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Lockwood v. Manhattan Storage & Warehouse Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Windeler v. Scheers JewelersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- National Safe Deposit Co. v. SteadIllinois Supreme Court · 1911
- Dieterle v. BekinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Gardner v. Jonathan ClubCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Morgan v. . BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.