Harland v. Pe Ell State Bank

• Decision Date: 21 November 1922
• Docket Number: 17372.
• Citation: 122 Wash. 289,210 P. 681
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: HARLAND v. PE ELL STATE BANK.

210 P. 681

122 Wash. 289

HARLAND v. PE ELL STATE BANK.

No. 17372.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 21, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lewis County; Geo. D. Abel, Judge.

Action by M. E. Harland against the Pe Ell State Bank. From a judgment for plaintiff as to part of his claim only, both parties appeal. Affirmed.

E. S Snelling and John T. Welsh, both of South Bend, and Guy B Groff and William Hatch Davis, both of Spokane, for appellant.

W. W Langhorne, of Chehalis, for respondent.

MITCHELL J.

The Pe Ell State Bank in conducting its business was provided with a vault containing safety deposit boxes for hire and also a safe kept in its banking room outside of the vault. The entrance to the vault consisted of two thin steel doors, the outer one being thicker and stronger than the inner one. The inside door of the vault fastened with lock and key, the outer one locked with bolts inside. The safe was of medium size, having a thick, fireproof door. The inside of it consisted of pigeonholes and a so-called burglar-proof steel chest fastened with a combination lock. The bank had received certain United States Liberty Bonds and War Savings Stamps, the property of Leander Crosette and Albert Meade that were kept in safety deposit boxes the rentals for which were paid by them. It had also received certain United States Liberty Bonds, the property of M. E. Harland, Gus Papas, and Ward Carper, that were kept in the bank's safe, without compensation. At the close of work one day the cashier of the bank, who had the active personal management of it, left the banking room without locking or fastening the outer door of the vault. That night the bank was burglarized. The outer door of the vault was opened, uninjured, and the inner door was blown open. The outer door of the safe was blown off, and the combination lock of the steel money chest in the safe was blown off without that door being opened. The contents of the chest were not disturbed. The bonds and stamps of the parties mentioned, together with similar instruments and securities belonging to other persons, including the bank, were carried away, and have not been recovered. This action followed, in which Harland in his original right as to his bonds and as assignee of Crosette, Meade, Papas, and Carper sued the bank to recover the value of the bonds and stamps, together with interest. Findings of fact, conclusions, and judgment were entered in favor of the plaintiff for the bonds and stamps taken from the vault, but against him as to those taken from the safe. Each party has appealed from that portion of the judgment against him.

We consider the bank's appeal first. Noticing the terms of the written assignments to the plaintiff by Crosette and Meade, the bank contends that the bonds and stamps were attempted to be assigned, and that they could not be assigned or transferred according to the terms of an act of Congress and administrative regulations thereunder of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. Upon oral argument the point was waived as affecting the bonds. However, as to both, a fair understanding of the words of the assignments sustains the findings of the trial court that they were made for 'suit and collection.' We have no doubt the bank is fully protected, the beneficial owners respectively having testified at the trial in support of the assigned causes of action.

The principal contention on the appeal arises over the findings and conclusions on the merits. It fairly appears from all the testimony that the door to the safe was a greater obstacle to the success of a burglar than the inner door of the vault and than the outer door of the vault would have been had it been locked. Therefrom it is heartily insisted by the bank that if the outer door of the vault had been locked it would have afforded no effecient protection against the burglar, and that therefore the failure of the bank to lock the outer door of the vault did not constitute negligence for which it is liable for the theft of the securities taken from the vault. If so, then, had the bank carelessly left both doors of the vault unlocked or wide open, the loss of the valuables therein at the hands of the burglar would have created no liability against the bank because the burglar had demonstrated his superior ability by blowing off the door to the safe. The rule would apply in the...