Maloney v. Merchants' Bank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge; 1. The undisputed facts of this' case show gross negligence, and the verdict is therefore contrary to the law. • 137 U. S. 604; 39 Am. St. Rep. 172. 2..
Read the full summary
Appeal from Polk Circuit Court; James S. Steel, Judge; 1. The undisputed facts of this' case show gross negligence, and the verdict is therefore contrary to the law. • 137 U. S. 604; 39 Am. St. Rep. 172. 2.. Instruction No. 3 is not a correct statement of the law.' 5 Cyc. 187. 3. Instruction No. 5 does not state the law correctly, because it makes the sole standard to measure the degree of care required of the bank, the same care' givén to bonds or other valuable papers belonging to the bank or its officers. It ignores the proposition that the bailee mig'ht have been negligent in keeping its…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The testimony in this case is substantially identical with that in the case of Merchants’ Bank of Vandervoort v. Affholter, 140 Ark. 480, as the litigation in both cases arose out of the same burglary, except that in the former case there was, in addition to the question of negligence, the further question of agency in regard to certain bonds stolen at the same time.
The testimony is summarized as follows: “The bank kept a large iron safe with a combination lock on it, and inside of this safe was á compartment which was burglar-proof and was used for the safe-keeping of money. Liberty bonds of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Merchants Bank v. AffholterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
- Ray's administrators v. Bank of KentuckyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874
- Patriska v. Kronk, New York County Courts1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Boyd v. Harrison State BankMontana Supreme Court · 1936