Paset v. Old Orchard Bank

1. Who were the parties involved in the case? (plaintiff/defendant/respondent/petitioner)

Bernice Paset the plaintiff and Old Orchard Bank the defendant

2. What were the facts in the case?

Paset, a renter of a safety box at Old Orchard Bank and Trust Company, found $6,325 in currency on the seat of a chair in an examination booth in the safety deposit vault. The chair was partially under a table. Paset notified officers of the bank and turned the money over to them.

She was told by bank officials that they would try to locate the owner and that she could have the money if the owner was located within one year. The bank wrote to everyone who had been in the safety deposit vault are on the day of, or on the day preceding, the discovery, stating that property had been found.

The money remained unclaimed, and after a year Paset claimed the money under the state statue governing the disposition of lost and found property. The bank refused, claiming that the money was mislaid, not lost, and was therefore property of the bank. Was the money lost of mislaid, and will the court award the money to Paset?

3. What was the Rule of Law in the case? (Rule of law the court applies to determine the rights of the parties)

Rule of law in this case is, was the money lost or mislaid.

Mislaid property indicates a situation in which the owner intentionally put the object in the place it was found but then he did not remember to pick it up.

Lost property describes a situation in which an object is found in a place the owner most likely did not plan to leave it.

4.Who won the case? Why?

Fill in the blank