Broaddus v. Commerical Nat. Bank

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
113 Okla. 10, 237 P. 583 (1925)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A bailment is not created unless there is a full transfer of property to the bailee, giving the bailee sole custody and control and the right to exclude even the owner from possession for the period of the bailment.

Facts:

B. Broaddus and C. A. Ambrister (tenants) rented office space in a building owned by The Commerical National Bank and Johnella P. Barnes (landlords).
The rental agreement included janitor service, which required the landlords and their employees to possess keys to the tenants' office.
The tenants and their stenographer also retained their own keys and had continuous access to the office.
On July 1, 1922, the tenants placed $90 in a combination safe within their office, but were unsure if they fully locked the combination.
The following Monday morning, the tenants discovered the $90 was missing from the safe.
On August 11, 1922, the tenants placed another $25 in the same safe, which was also found to be missing the following Monday morning.
On both occasions, the office doors had been locked by the tenants and showed no signs of forced entry upon their return.

Procedural Posture:

The Commercial National Bank and Johnella P. Barnes sued B. Broaddus and C. A. Ambrister in the District Court of Muskogee County for $115 in unpaid rent.
The defendants filed an answer admitting the debt and a cross-petition seeking to offset the rent with $115 they claimed was stolen from their office due to the plaintiffs' negligence.
The case was tried to a jury on the defendants' cross-petition.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the full amount of the rent.
The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict and subsequently denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.
The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a landlord-tenant relationship create a bailment over a tenant's personal property located within the leased office space when the landlord retains a key for purposes such as providing janitorial services?

Opinions:

Majority - Mason, J.

No. A landlord-tenant relationship does not create a bailment over a tenant's property inside the leased office space merely because the landlord retains a key for access. A bailment requires such a full delivery of the property to the bailee as would entitle the bailee to exclude even the owner's possession for the duration of the bailment. Here, the tenants never relinquished possession of their office or its contents; they retained their own keys and had access at all times. Since the landlords did not have sole custody and control, a necessary element of a bailment is 'fatally absent.' The landlord's liability, if any, must be based on ordinary negligence, not the special duties imposed upon a bailee.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the fundamental distinction between a lease of real property and a bailment of personal property. It establishes that a landlord's retention of a key for limited access does not, by itself, transfer possession of the tenant's personal effects to the landlord. This holding prevents the imposition of a bailee's heightened duty of care onto landlords in typical commercial or residential lease situations. Consequently, tenants remain primarily responsible for securing their own property within their leased premises, and any claim against the landlord for lost property must generally be proven under a theory of negligence rather than bailment.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Broaddus v. Commerical Nat. Bank (1925)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"