
    Richard Bolan against Williamson and Chapman.
    
      Columbia,
    
    1804.
    A postmaster is liable for money contained in a letter lodged in which^s^ost £®*ves the iet" But if such letter is delivered to his shadífé Hable for his own , „ neglects, and not the principal. The payment of a premium is not necessary to make either of them, liable; th'e general undertaking to deliver safely is a sufficient of action.
    SPECIAL action on the case, tried in Richland district. . Verdict tor plaintiff. Motion for new trial.
    rp, ■ ... . , . Ihis was a special action on the case against defendants, for 450 dollars, lost out of a letter lodged in the post-office in the town of Columbia, addressed to a mercantile house in Charleston. Mr. Williamson was postmaster in Columbia, and Chapman was his deputy. The plaintiff pro- ■* r J r r ved on the trial, the lodging of the letter in the post-office on the morning of the post day, by a witness who counted the bank bills, and saw1 the letter folded up and sealed. It X was further proved, that the letter covering these bills with the Post marks on it, duly arrived by the mail in Charleston, but the bank bills had been taken out.
    ' Salk. 17.
    Upon this testimony the jury gave a general verdict for the amount of the money lost, against the postmaster and his deputy, jointly. It however came out from the witnesses who were present when the letter was lodged in the post-office, that Williamson, the principal, was absent, and that Chapman received the letter.
    In support of this motion, it was argued, on the part of the defendants, that the postmaster was not liable as the principal in the office, because a post-office is not an office of insurance, but an office of intelligence; they do not know the contents of letters and packages put into the post-office, nor are they paid like common carriers, a premium equal to the risk. The duty of a postmaster is to convey intelligence and news from one part of the country to another, with all convenient despatch, and that too through a great variety of hands and offices, all of whom are equally concerned in like manner in forwarding this intelligence, public and private, over which he has no control. It was admitted, that if any person having the immediate care of such an office, is guilty of omission or neglect in the office, or if due care is not taken of a letter or packet, such person is liable, on the ground that every man who undertakes a public trust, ought to execute it faithfully; and if it appears that he does not exercise due care and diligence, then he is liable. But it did not appear in the present case, whether this accident happened while this letter lay in the post-office at Columbia or on the road, or in any other post-office or place after the mail was closed at Columbia. The letter itself went safe and in due time, according to the regulations of the post-office, though it unfortunately happened the money or contents had been purloined somewhere, but where was the question. If while the letter lay in the office at' Columbia, then it was admitted Chapman was liable; but as there was no proof of that fact, it was said he was not liable.
    
      Q Ld. Maym* 909. 3 Will 447.
    Against this motion it was strongly urged, that the of« fice of postmaster was an office of high trust and confidence, as a great portion of the commerce of the world was carried on through the medium of post-offices; and if they were to be exempted from responsibility, innumerable frauds might be committed.
    They have the appointment of all their own deputies and inferior officers, and should appoint none but such as were trust-worthy; and if they turn out otherwise, they are answerable for it. Every principal was liable for the misconduct of his deputy, in every public department.
    In answer to the argument, “ that a post-office is only an office of intelligence, and not of insurance, and that no premium was paid,” it was said, that the payment of a premium is not necessary to create a responsibility, for that every man who undertakes to carry goods or money, was liable to an action, be he common carrier or not; and whether a premium is paid or not. And the reason why the law makes him liable is, that a particular trust -was reposed in him, to which he has concurred by his assumption, or taking upon him to execute it; and if any injury arises by his neglect, he is liable in damages. And for this purpose, the case of Coggs and Barnard was relied on as strong in point; where it was held by all the Judges, who delivered their opinions separatim, that if a man acts by commission gratis, and in the execution of it behaves himself negligently, he is answerable ; as he puts a fraud upon the plaintiff by being negligent, and that it was a breach of trust undertaken voluntarily, which is a good ground of action.
   The Judges,

after considering this case, felt and acknowledged it was an important one to the community. That a post-office was an office of great trust and cpnfidence, in which the commercial interests of the union were deeply concerned; and unless great punctuality was- observed, the inconveniences and injuries- to the public would be beyond all calculation» But important as the case was, this and every other of the like bind, must be governed by its own, circumstances- Wherever a postmaster is guilty himself of any negligence or misbehaviour, he ought to be made liable in damages ; but it would be hard and unreasonable to make him responsible further than for his own misconduct, especially where such a number of persons are necessarily concerned in the post-office department.

In the present case, it appears from the evidence offered,, that Williamson was from home when the letter in question was, lodged in the post-office; that he knew nothing about it. It would not, therefore, be very consistent with justice to make him liable for a thing he knew nothing about, or had no knowledge of. The letter enclosing the money was- delivered to- Chapman, the deputy in the office, who took charge of it; and it has not appeared that the money was takenout of the letter after it left the post-office at Columbia± or that the mail was robbed, or that any accident happened on the road to Charleston.

The presumption is, therefore,- that the money must have been tálcen out of the letter by some one who had access to the office before the mail was closed, as the money was not in the letter when delivered out of the post-office in- Charleston;, and although there is no, imputation against Chapman’s honesty, yet by his negligence it might have been lost or taken out by some dishonest person who -got admission by some means into the post-office. Deputy-postmasters are subsisting substantial officers-, and are-liable for all their nonfeasances, and misfeasances, and an action may be maintained against them for all omissions and neglects in office. And the case cited from Salk-17. is strong-in point j where it is express!}' Ibid down, that a deputy is liable > SO also in 3 Will. 447. And it is not necessary that a premium should be paid to make him liable; for whether r * # * , - it be paid or not, the law will charge him, upon ms general undertaking to carry it safely, as was determined in 2 Ld. Raym. 909. after solemn argument, by all the Judges; likewise, 3 Will. 446. They were, therefore, all of opinion, there was no evidence in this case to charge Williamson, the principal in office, but there was nothing to prevent the plaintiff from going on against Chapman, the deputy, if he thought proper.

Rule for new trial made absolute»

All the Judges present,  