TURTON
v.
DUFIEF
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A bailee who invested money on behalf of another on mortgage security was sued for negligence when a subsequent mortgagee obtained priority and the mortgagor became insolvent. The Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the defendant, holding that the bailee had acted with due diligence and care in securing the loan, and that the plaintiff's own negligence in failing to record the mortgage—coupled with the mortgagor's insolvency—was not attributable to the bailee's breach of duty.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.
"We do not consider it necessary to vindicate our opinion in affirming the charge of the court below, to enter into a discussion of the law of bailment in general from Coggs and Bernard down to this time, or clearly to define the difference between negligence and gross negligence. The evidence clearly establishes the fact that the defendant “ did diligently and carefully lend and invest the sum of money intrusted to him on good and sufficient security for the repayment thereof.” It is the gravamen of the charge in the plaintiff’s narr. that he did not do so.
The mortgage was a sufficient security without being recorded, and continued to be so for three years. It was in the possession of the plaintiff" and his wife. The plaintiff himself had it in his possession near four months before the second mortgage was put on record. The neglect to put it on record may more properly be imputed' to bimself than to the defendant.
We are asked to decide that the gentleman who did Mrs. Fowler the kindness to make the investment for her should have anticipated her negligence, and that also of her husband, and have anticipated the insolvency, also, of the mortgagor, and that he has been guilty of negligence, either simple or gross, which should make him liable in the present action.
We do not take this view of the case, and find no error in the charge of the court. Judgment affirmed.
The CHIEF JUSTICE did not sit in this case.