
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    SCOTT et al. v. THE NATIONAL BANK OF CHESTER VALLEY.
    The plaintiffs below, who kept an account with the defendant, made a special deposit of certain bonds for safe keeping, paying nothing for the privilege; the bonds were stolen by the teller, who had always borne a good character.
    Held, I. That the bank was a gratuitous bailee, and as such not liable, except for gross negligence.
    2. That neither the fact that the bank might have discovered that the teller was. dishonest by a more frequent or .accurate examination of his accounts, nor that he was allowed to keep the “ individual ledger,” which was the only book which was a check upon him, nor that he was not dismissed when it was discovered that he had made a successful speculation in stocks, was such negligence as to render the bank liable.
    3. That nothing short of knowledge or reasonable grounds of suspicion by the bank, that the teller was unfit to be appointed or retained, would render it liable. Foster ■v. F,sse.x Bank, 17 Mass. 478, approved and followed; Lancaster Bank v. Smith, 12 P. K. S. (62 Penna. Stat.) 47, remarked on.
    Error to the court of Common Pleas of Chester county.
   Opinion delivered February 16, 1874, by

Agnew, C. J.

As early as the case of Tompkins v. Saltmarsh, 14 S. & R. 275, it was decided that a delivery of a package of money to a. gratuitous bailee, to be carried to a distant place and delivered to another for the benefit of the bailor, imposes no liability upon the bailee for its s afe keeping, except for gross negligence. In that case, the package was stolen from the valise of the bailee, at an inn in the Gourse of his journey, after it had been carried to his room, in the usual custom of inns in that day, (1822). The same rule is laid down by Justice Coulter, arguendo, iii Lloyd v. West Branch Bank. He says, a mere depository, without any special undertaking, and without reward, is answerable for the loss of the goods only in case of gross negligence, which, in its effects on contracts, is equivalent to fraud. He further remarks, that the accommodation here was to the bailor, and to him alone, and he ought to be the loser, unless he in whom he confided, the bank or cashier, had been guilty of bad faith in exposing the goods to hazards to which they would not expose their own. These rules he derives from Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Lord Raymond 909; (1 Smith’s Lead. Ca., part I. 369, ed. 1872), and Foster v. Essex Bank, 17 Mass. 501. In the latter case, the law of bailment was exhaustively discussed by Parker, C. J., and the conclusions were as above stated. It was further held that the degree of care which is necessary to avoid the imputation of bad faith, is measured by the carefulness which the bailee rises towards his own property of a similar kind. When such care is exercised, the bailee is not answerable for a larceny of the goods, by the theft even of an officer of the bank. It is further said, that from such special bailments, even of money in packages, for safe keeping, no consideration •can be implied. The bank cannot use the deposits in its business ; and no such profit or credit from the holding of the money can arise as will convert the bank into a bailee for hire or reward of any kind. The bailment in such case is purely gratuitous, and for the benefit of the bailor, and 'no loss can be cast upon the bank for a larceny, unless there has been gross negligence in taking care of the deposit. These appear to be just conclusions, drawn from the nature of the bailment. The rule in this State is stated by Thompson, C. J., in Lancaster Bank v. Smith, 12 P. F. Smith 54. He says : “ The case on hand was a voluntary bailment, or, more accurately speaking, a bailment without compensation, in which the rule of liability for loss is usually stated to arise on proof of gross negligence.” That case went to the jury on the question of ordinary care, and hence the observation of the Chief Justice, that the same idea was sufficiently expressed by the judge below in using the words, want of ordinary care. It may be proper, however, to say, that want of ordinary care is applicable to bailees with reward, when the loss arises from causes not within the duty imposed by the contract of safe keeping, as from fire, theft, &c., and hence is not the measure in such a case as that before us, which we have seen is gross negligence.

That case was one where the teller of the bank delivered the deposited bonds to a stranger, calling himself by the name of the bailor, without taking sufficient care to be certain that he was delivering the package to-the right person, and the bank was held responsible for his negligence. There the teller, in giving out the deposit, was acting in his official capacity, and hence the liability of the bank. The case before us now is different, the bonds being stolen by the teller, who absconded. This teller was both clerk and teller; but the taking of the bonds was not an act pertaining to his business, as either clerk or teller. The bonds were left at the risk of the plaintiff, and never entered into the business of the bank. Being a bailment merely for safe keeping, for the benefit of the bailor, and without compensation, it is evident the dishonest act of the teller was in no way connected with his employment. Under these circumstances, the only ground of liability must arise in a knowledge of the bank that the teller was an unfit person to be appointed, or to be retained in its employment. So long as the bank was ignorant of the dishonesty of the teller, and trusted him with its own funds, confiding in his character for integrity, it would be a harsh rule that would hold it liable for an act not in the course of the business of the bank, or of the employment of the officer. There was no undertaking to the bailor that the officers would; not steal. Of course there was a confidence that they would not, but not a promise that they should not. The case does not rest on a warranty or undertaking, but of gross negligence in care taking. Nothing short of a knowledge of the true character of the teller, or of reasonable grounds to suspect his integrity, followed by a neglect to remove him, can be said to be gross negligence, without raising a contract for care higher than a gratuitous bailment can create. The question of the bank’s knowledge of the character of the teller was fairly submitted to the jury.

But it turned out that after the teller absconded his accounts were found to be false, and that he had been abstracting the funds of the bank for about two years, to an amount of about $26,000.

It was contended that the want of discovery of the state of his accounts for such a length of time, especially as he had charge of the individual ledger, was such evidence of negligence as made the bank liable.

The court negatived this position, and held that the bank was not bound to search his accounts for the benefit of a gratuitous bailor, whose loss arose not from the account as kept by him, but from a larceny, a transaction outside of his employment.

We perceive no error in this. The negligence constituting the ground of liability must be such as enters into the cause of loss. But the false entries in the books, and the want of their discovery, was not the cause of the bailor’s loss, and not connected with it. True the same person was. guilty of both offences, but the acts were unconnected and independant.

True the bank did not discover in time the injury he did to it; but' the very fact that it did not discover his false entries and his peculations repels the knowledge of his dishonesty. The neglect was culpable, and might have led to responsibility to those with whom they had dealings, if they suffered from that neglect. But this neglect to examine into his accounts was not the cause of the bailor’s loss. His loss was owing to the immediate act of dishonesty of the teller, and not to his purloining the funds or falsifying the accounts of the bank. The argument of the plaintiff simply results in this; that mistaken confidence is a ground of liability. But if this were the casé, business would stand still; for without a common degree of confidence in agents and officers, much of the business of the world must cease. The facts were fairly left to the jury, with the proper instructions.

Another complaint is, that the teller was suffered to remain in employment after it was known that he had dealt once or twice in stock. Undoubtedly the purchase or sale of stocks is not ipso facto the evidence of dishonesty; but as the judge well said, had he been found at the gaming table, or engaged in some fraudulent or dishonest practice, he should not be continued in a place of trust. So if the president of the bank, when he called on the brokers who acted for the teller in the purchase of stock, has discovered that he was engaged in stock gambling, or in buying and selling beyond his evident means, a different course would have been called for. No officer in a bank, engaged in stock gambling, can be safely trusted; ‘and the evidence of this is found in the numerous defaulters, whose peculations have been discovered to be directly traceable to this species ef gambling. A cashier, treasurer, or other officer, having the custody of funds, thinks he sees a desirable speculation, and takes the funds of his institution, hoping to return them instantly, but he fails in his venture, or success tempts him on, and he ventures again to retrieve his loss or increase his gain, and again and again he ventures. Thus the first step, often taken without a criminal intent, is the fatal step which ends in ruin to himself and to those whose confidence he has betrayed. Hence, any evidence of stock gambling, or dangerous outside operations, should be visited with immediate dismissal. In this case, the operations of the teller in stocks, as a gambler in them, was unknown to the officers of the bank until after he had absconded. Upon the whole, the case appears to have been properly tried, and finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.  