Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/163

LAW OF SAFE-DEPOSIT COMPANIES. 135 ment is exercised." The doctrine is followed in Arnot z Branco- nier, 14 Mo. App. 431, and Collins v. Bennett, 46 N. Y. 490. It is also to be noted from the case of Safe-Deposit Company v. Pollock, that the question as to whether or not there has been neg- ligence is for the jury. III. The Position and Duty of the Company in Case of Legal Pro^ ceedings against the Property of a Depositor, The system of safeguards with which safe-deposit vaults are pro- vided is now very complete. The mode of construction is such as to offer a very slight opportunity for entry from without by thieves. Devices by which the lock upon each safe is made different from the others, and methods for securing the complete identification of customers, have reduced to a minimum the possibility of an impos- tor gaining access to one of the private safes through deceit prac- tised upon the custodian. Hence there is Httle chance for the company to incur liability through theft or loss of property arising from negligence on its part. Where, however, the officers of the company are called upon to exercise the greatest care and discre- tion, in order to protect adequately the property in their charge, is in the case of an attempt to reach the property of a depositor through process of law. The position of the company in such a case, and es- pecially the form of process that will reach property deposited with it, are among the most important questions in connection with the business which the courts have been called upon to decide. These points have been so clearly established that those acting for the company may be sure of two things : that the extent of their duty is reached in satisfying themselves beyond question that the pro- cess is legal and regular; and that, this being so, the company is exempt from all responsibihty for the subsequent acts of the officer under it. We may now proceed to consider the steps by which these con- clusions were arrived at, in the course of which it will be seen that the company cannot be subjected to garnishment or trustee pro- cess; that the only process by which property deposited with it can be reached is through seizure by the sheriff under direct at- tachment ; also, that the company is not liable for property of third persons taken from the safe of the debtor, either as his property or because confused with his property. The rule that the company is not subject to garnishment or trus-