Lane and Others against Cotton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 853
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
See S. C. 12 Mod. 472; Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, 1866, L. R. 1 H. L. 111; Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General [1906], 1 K. B. 186.
case 34. lane and others against cotton. [See S. C. 12 Mod. 472; Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, 1866, L. E. 1 H. L. Ill ; Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General [1906], 1 K. B. 186.] Action on the case will not lie against the postmaster for loss of Exchequer-bills and letter delivered in at an under-office.-S. C. 5 Mod. 455. S. C. Salk. 17, 143. S. C. Corny. 100. S. C. Garth. 487. S. C. 12 Mod. 472. S. C. 1 Ld. Ray. 646. S. C. Holt, 582. This term the Court of Queen's Bench gave judgment in this cause, which had been argued several terms at the Bar. The case was thus : In an action on the case the plaintiff declared upon the statute 12 Car. 2, c. 35, which establishes the general-post-office; setting forth the said statute, with the exceptions therein; and then set forth, that he delivered several Exchequer-bills, inclosed in a (letter) cover, at a certain place, unto a certain officer there, appointed by the post-master to receive letters and parcels to be conveyed to the said general-post-office : [13] which said letter and bills so delivered miscarried, and came not to the party's hands to whom they were directed. And on not guilty pleaded, the jury found a special verdict, in which all the said matter set forth in the declaration was found; and further, that the said general-post-master takes security of his under-officers; and that the letter (cover) in this case was broke open, and the bills taken out by a person unknown. The question was, whether an action lay against the postmaster for the negligence of his under-officers 1 Gould, Justice, argued, that judgment ought to be given for the defendant, and that upon consideration of the said Act of Parliament. First, this office was designed by the statute to be a letter-office only, for the benefit of commerce by the quick dispatch of intelligence; and although it should happen, that a letter should miscarry, yet no action will lie for this loss; for though a man may have a property therein, yet that property is nullius valoris, of no value or esteem in law (a), especially if it be only the communication of a man's mind, and no obligation contained in it. And by this reason will this case be ruled; for though these bills out of the Exchequer were of value, and trover will lie for them, yet they were conveyed here as letters, and so shall not have a worse effect, as to the post-master, than letters. (c) Year-Book 11 Hen. 4, fo. 49. Plowd. 401. (d) Hutton, 125. () Gouldsb. 60. (a) But see now the statute 2 Geo. 2, c. 25, s. 3. 1 Hawk. P. C. 7th edit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duppa, Executor of Baskerville v Mayo
...Sir T. Kaym. 450, Case v. Barber.(f) (d) And generally by the custom of gavelkind. 2 El. Com. 84. Cro. Car. 561, Launder v. Brooks. 11 Mod. 12^, Brunker v. Cook, and the casea and books there referred to. And the observation is not intended to apply to a bequest of existing "chattel interes......
-
G. B. K. Cassidy v R Steuart
...(vide Shuttleworth v. Garnet, or Garrett, 3 Lev. 261, 3 Mod. 240, Comberbach, 151, 1 Show. 35; Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Kaym. 546, 5 Mod. 456, 11 Mod. 12, 12 Mod. 472, Carth. 487 ; Cole v. Bawlimon, 1 Salk. 234, 2 Ld. Eaym. 831; Morris V. Reynolds, ib. 857, Begina v. Paty, ib, 1105), and whose......
-
Holliday v The Vestry of the Parish of St Leonard, Shoreditch
...establish the principle laid down by Chitty. The subject ;was much! discussed in Lane v. Ni-r Itnliert Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646, Comb. 110, 11 Mod. 12, 12 Mod. 482, 1 Salk. 17, Holt, 582, Garth. 487, where it was held that the postmaster-general was not responsible for the loss of a letter t......
-
Lane against Sir Robert Cotton
...at the post-office, and lost from the office (a).- S. C. 5 Mod. 455. S. C. Salk. 17, 143. S. C. Corny, Rep. 100. S. C. Garth. 487. S. C. 11 Mod. 12. S. C. Holt, 582. S. C. 1 Ld. Kay. 646. In an action on the case the plaintiff declared, reciting the statute of 12 Car. 2, c. 35, by which one......