Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/171

LAW OF SAFE-DEPOSIT COMPANIES. 143 and the exclusive jurisdiction of equity in matters of trust authorized that court to take cognizance of the action." The mutual interests and responsibilities existing in the tenants through their community of interest in the safe is not, however, extended to the property there deposited, to the end that one ten- ant is supposed to have knowledge of or control over the property deposited by his co-tenant; so that, where two persons held a safe- deposit box in common, and one of them, without authority, abstracted therefrom, and transferred to an innocent purchaser for value, a certificate of stock belonging to the other, it was held that the certificate was not intrusted to the possession of the wrongdoer, either directly, indirectly, or impliedly; nor was he authorized to remove it from the box ; and that, therefore, there could be no application of the rule that, where one of two innocent persons must suffer through the fraud of a third person, he must bear the loss who placed it in the power of the third person to commit the fraud.^ Thomas K. Cummins, Jr. 1 Bangor Elec. Light Co. v. Robinson, 52 Fed. Rep. 520.