Silcott v. Louisville Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 24 October 1924
• Citation: 205 Ky. 234,265 S.W. 612
• Parties: SILCOTT v. LOUISVILLE TRUST CO.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

265 S.W. 612

205 Ky. 234

SILCOTT v. LOUISVILLE TRUST CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 24, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch Second Division.

Action by Frank Silcott against Louisville Trust Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Arthur B. Bensinger and J. Verser Conner, both of Louisville, for appellant.

A. M Rutledge, of Louisville, for appellee.

TURNER C.

Appellant filed his action against appellee alleging that defendant in connection with its other business maintained and conducted a safety vault department, and that plaintiff rented, used, and occupied a safety vault box in such department of defendant and that on the 14th day of December, 1921, while plaintiff was in the said safety vault department for the purpose of using his own box therein, found on the floor of such vault department "a lost one Liberty bond of the par value of $1,000;" that he notified the agent and employee of defendant he had discovered and found such bond on the floor, and he and such agent and servant then entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiff surrendered the custody of the said bond to defendant for the purpose of discovering the owner of the same, and it was agreed that in the event the owner was not discovered within six months defendant would return the bond to plaintiff. After the expiration of six months he made demand for the return of the bond which was refused, whereupon this action was filed.

A demurrer was filed to the petition, but without awaiting action on the demurrer defendant filed its answer in the first paragraph of which it is denied that plaintiff found on the floor in defendant's safety vault department the bond mentioned, and it is denied that the bond was lost when so found or discovered by the plaintiff, and the alleged agreement set forth in the petition was denied. Then in second paragraph it is alleged affirmatively that the safety vault department of defendant is located upon the same floor and immediately adjoining its general offices, but that access to such vault department is not had through the general offices of the company, but through a separate door opening into said department, and which door is kept closed and locked, and is opened by an attendant of that department only when admission is desired by a customer; that a daily register is kept by such department in which those who enter the safety vault department sign their names, giving the number of their box and the hour of their admission thereto; that in the large vaults in said department are a number of individual safes or compartments which defendant rents to its customers for the safe-keeping of their money, securities, and other valuables, and that in each of said compartments is a metal box in which such money, securities, and valuables may be placed and held; that access to these compartments or individual safes can be had only by the use of two keys, one of which is kept by the customer and the other by the attendant in charge; that for the protection and convenience of those who use said safety vault boxes defendant keeps and maintains a number of small private rooms furnished with a chair and desk, immediately in the rear of the large vault, each of which rooms has a door entering into it with a bolt or fastening on the inside for the further safety of those using and occupying said rooms; and that this was the situation, and the mode and method of conducting and operating said safety vault department at the time plaintiff discovered the said bond and returned it to defendant; that said bond so found by the plaintiff was found in one of the said private rooms so maintained by this defendant for the use and occupation of its customers, "and rightfully belongs to and is the property of a customer of this defendant." It is also alleged that the bond, at the time it was found and returned, was not lost, "but was in the possession and in the care and keeping of this defendant for the benefit of the owner thereof, who was one of this defendant's customers, and that this defendant still holds and retains said bond and is entitled to hold and retain the same for the use and benefit of the real owner thereof, when he shall be found; that defendant has made and is still making diligent effort to ascertain and discover the owner of said bond, but so far has not...