Lane v Cotton et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1741 |
| Date | 01 January 1741 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 90 E.R. 880
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See S. C. 12 Mod. 472; 88 E. R. 1458 (with note).
[487] lane versus cotton & AiA Intratur Pas. 11 Will. 3, B. E. Eot. 403. [See S. C. 12 Mod. 472; 88 E. E. 1458 (with note).] The pleadings. 2 Mod. 108. 5 Mod. 455, S. C. 1 Salk. 17, S. C. Vide ante, 485. Action will not lie against the post-master for a letter miscarried in which there were Exchequer-bills. Sed Holt Ch. Justice contra. Salk. 143. 1 Sid. 36, 245. 1 Ro. Ab. 338. Plowd. 3. 2 Mod. 270. 3 Mod. 227, 323. Skin. 278, 279. Palm. 523. 1 Vent. 190, 238. 1 Mod. 85. 1 Keb. 135, 852, 870. 3 Keb. 72, 112, 135. Hern's Pleader 76, 77. Case against the defendants Cotton and Franklin, the general post-masters, setting forth the Statute 2 Car. by which the post-office was created, and that in pursuance of that statute a general post-office had been erected and settled in Lombard-Street, London, and a post established to carry letters from London to Worcester, and from thence back again to London ; and that the defendants were constituted general postmasters, by patent from King William and Queen Mary, and that the plaintiff was possessed of two Exchequer-bills for 3001. which he inclosed in a letter directed to such a person in Worcester; and that he delivered the said letter with the bills inclosed, unto the defendants in their office in Lombard-Street; and that this letter with the bills was not conveyed to Worcester, but lost by the negligence of the defendants and their servants. And all this matter being found specially, the question was, whether this action would lie against the defendants for this neglect and nonfeasance. And it was argued for the plaintiff, that this action is maintainable, for the post- * Allen 93. CAKTHEW, . TERM. PASCH. 11 WILL. 3. B. R. 881 masters are not appointed only as officers to take care of the King's revenue, but as officers in pursuance of the Act of Parliament, to take care of letters, &c. so as to answer the end of the statute, which is to advance trade and commerce for the benefit of the subject chiefly, and not as an act for the revenue, for that is but accidental. And tho' these officers were newly created when the post-office was first erected, yet they are under the same conditions as officers at common law, and therefore liable to an action for breach of trust. And a nonfeasance is as good a cause of action against an officer of trust as a misfeasance (i.e.) for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lane against Sir Robert Cotton
-
Rowning v Goddchild
...P. Smith v. Pmvdich, 1 Cowp. 182. See also 46 G. 3, c. 92, ss. 2, 3. (*) See Lome v. Cotton, 1 Lord Raym. 646, 655; S. C. 1 Cora. R. 100, Carth. 487, Salk. 17 ; Whitfield v. Lord le Despencer, 2 Cowp. 754. English Reports Citation: 96 E.R. 536 COURTS OF WESTMINSTER-HALL Rowning and Goddchi......
-
Alderson and Others, Assignees, v Temple
...2, law 38 (master writing a letter to a slave; the property in him is not devested, till the letter is received). Lane v. Cotton et Al', Carthew, 487. 2 Atkyns, 562. 1 Atkyns, 15. 1 Atkyns, 245, Snee and Baxter, Assignees of Toilet, against Prescot and Others; and the case of Hague and Othe......
-
Lane v Cotton and Sir Thomas Franklin. in B. R
...out of a letter delivered at the post office. 1 Raym. 646. 1 Salk. 17, 143, S. C. 5 Mod. 455, S. C. 12 Mod. 472, S. C. Holt 582, S. C. Carth. 487, S. C. 11 Mod. 12, S. C. 1 Mod. Ent. 418. 1 Com. Dig. 206. 1 Bac. Abr. 47. 3 Bac. Abr. 561. Harg. Co. Litt. 89 b. n. 3. This was au action upon t......