Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/342

 § 347.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. some special or contractual obligation owing from the corpora- tion to the injured person. The illustrations will be almost entirely drawn from the law relating to common carriers, and in especial to railroad companies ; but of course other classes of corporations will at times have to respond in damages for omis- sions and neglects of their servants and agents, which cause the breach of a duty owing from the corporation. § 346. Thus, a bank is liable for the loss, through the gross Violation negligence of its officers or employes, of a special de- of special posit received by it for safe- keeping ; l and for the obligation. 1 . . . J? L neglect of its officers to protest or present at matu- rity a promissory note deposited with it for collection. 2 And a bank will be liable if its teller receives a deposit unaccompanied by the customary deposit ticket or pass-book, and credits it by mistake to the wrong person. 3 § 347. To the contract of a common carrier of passengers „ the law from the motives of public policy adds certain Common l. carriers of implied covenants or obligations ; or it may be said, in somewhat different words, the carrier impliedly agrees to do more than simply to carry the passenger. He agrees, as we shall hereafter see in regard to negligence, to use every reasonable precaution for the passenger's safety ; 4 and while a carrier does not insure his passengers against every conceivable danger, he is held absolutely to agree that his own servants engaged in transporting the passenger shall commit no wrongful act against him. Accordingly, any tort committed on a passenger by servants of the carrier who come in contact with him in the ordinary performance of their duties and labors, causes a breach of contract between the passenger and the carrier, for which the latter is liable. Recent cases state this liability in the broadest and strongest language ; and, with- out going beyond the actual decisions, it may be said that the 190. See, also, Edwards v. London and N. W. R'y Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 445; Allen v. London and S. W. R'y Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 65; but compare Goff v. Great Northern R'y Co., 3 E. & E. 672. 1 National Bank ». Graham, 100 U. S. 699; Chattahoochee Nat. Bk. v. Schley, 58 Ga. 369; §§161, 337. 322 2 Chapman v. McCrea, 63 Ind. 360; Bank of New Hanover v. Kenan, 76 N. C. 340; Steele v. Russell, 5 Neb. 211; Capital State Bank v. Lane, 52 Miss. 677. See § 161. 3 Jackson Ins. Co. v. Cross, 9 Heisk. ( Tenn. ) 283. 4 See § 350.