Lane v Sir Robert Cotton and Sir Thomas Frankland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Date | 01 January 1792 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 1332
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Bennett v. Bayes, 1860, 29 L. J. Ex. 227; Mersey Docks v. Gibbs, 1866, L. R. 1 H. L. 111; Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General, [1906], 1 K. B. 186.
1332 EASTER TERM, 13 WILL. 3 1LD. RAYM. 646. [646] easter term, 13 will. 3, B. R. 1701. Sir John Holt, Chief Justice. Sir John Turton, Sir Littleton Powys, Sir Henry Gould, Justices, lane vers. sir egbert cotton and sir thomas frankland. Intr. Paseh. 10 Will. 3, B. E. Eot. 403. [Referred to, Bennett v. Bayes, I860, 29 L. J. Ex. 227; Mersey Docks v. Gibbs, 1866, L. R. 1 H. L. Ill; Cambridge v. Postmaster-General, [1906], 1 K. B. 186.] S. C. Com. 100. 11 Mod. 12. Salk. 17. Holt, 582, with the arguments of counsel, Garth. 487, and very much at large, 12 Mod. 482. Pleadings 2 Mod. Bnt. 108. The head of a public office under Government with power to appoint and remove the servants of the office who are to be paid by, and give at his discretion security to Government is not responsible to an individual for a loss occasioned by the default of such servants. The servant who is guilty of the default, is. The post-master general is not answerable for a packet delivered to the receiver at the post office and lost out of the office. S. C. 5 Mod. 455. R. ace. Cowp. 754. But the receiver is. The plaintiff brought an action upon his case against the defendants as post-master general, for that, that a letter of the plaintiff's, being delivered into the said office, to be sent by the post from London to Worcester, by the negligence of the defendants in the execution of their office, was opened in the office, and divers Exchequer bills therein inclosed were taken away, ad damnum, &c. Upon not guilty pleaded, this case was tried before Holt Chief Justice at Guildhall in London, and a special verdict found there. The jury found the Act of 12 Car. 2, c. 35, of the erection of the general post-office, and that a general post was established pursuant to it between London and Worcester: they find the Act of 1 Jac. 2, c. 12, which consolidates the estates in fee and in tail in the said office in the King; that the defendants were constituted postmaster general by letters patent of the King that now is, bearing date the first year of his reign under the Great Seal of England, pursuant to the said Act of 12 Car. 2, c. 35, and that by the said patent they had power to make deputies, and to appoint servants, at their pleasure, and to take security of them, but in the name, and to the use of the King, and that the de-[647]-fendants should obey such orders as they should receive from time to time from the King under the sign manual, and as to the management of the revenue, that they should obey the orders of the Treasury, and farther that the King granted to them, that they should not be chargeable, to account for the mismanagement or default of their inferior officers, but only for their own voluntary defaults; and farther the King granted to them the salary of 15001. per annum out of the profits arising out of the office, &c. that the office was kept in London ; that the plaintiff being possessed of eight Exchequer bills, inclosed them in a letter directed to John Jones, at Worcester, and delivered it to Underbill Breese the receiver of the letters at the post office ; that Breese was appointed by the defendants to receive the letters at the office, and was removable by the defendants, but received his salary out of the revenue of the said office by the bands of the receiver-general; that the letter was opened in the office by a person unknown, and the bills were taken away; et si, &c. This case was argued several times at the Bar by Sir Bartholomew Shower, Mr. Northey, and Mr. Pratt, for the plaintiff; and by Serjeant Wright, the Solicitor General Hawles, and the Attorney General Trevor, for the defendants. And now this term the Judges pronounced their opinions in solemn arguments, viz. Turton, Powys, and Gould, Justices, that judgment ought to be given for the defendants : and Holt, that judgment ought to be for the plaintiff. Gould Justice said, that at first he was of opinion with the plaintiff, and now upon great consideration he had changed it. And he founded his present opinion upon 1LD. RAYM.6. EASTER TERM, 13 WILL. 3 1333 consideration, 1. Of the design of the Act, and nature of the office, which is stiled in the Act a letter office, and not regarded there as an absolute security for dispatches, but for promotion of trade in procuring speedy dispatches. If a letter had barely miscarried, the defendants could not have been chargeable for it; for though there is property in a letter, yet it is not a valuable property, for which a man shall recover damages. Letters in their nature are missive, and transient from hand to hand, and therefore difficult, if not impossible, to be secured. And therefore he denied the assertion at the Bar, that the action would lie for the miscarriage of a letter, like Yelv. 63, where it is held, that the value of the bond is that of the debt, not of the wax and paper. Which determines this case, because the Exchequer bills being inclosed in a letter (though they are bills of credit,) yet are estimable only as a letter. For whatsoever is carried by the post, has the denomination of a letter. [648] 2. If any thing can support this action, it must be a contract expressed or implied ; but here is neither the one nor the other. The security of the dispatches depends upon the credit of the office, as founded upon the Act. Breese is as much an officer as the defendants, but they are more general officers. But Breese is the King's officer, and if there is any contract, it is between the plaintiff and Breese ; which appears by the Act, which appoints several acts for all, and puts confidence in all. And therefore they resemble a community of officers acting in several trusts; and every one shall answer for himself, not one for the act of another; as in case of a dean and chapter, 1 Edw. 5, 5 a. If the defendants had died, yet Breese would have continued officer; and therefore Breese has a charge and trust of himself, and is not a deputy to the defendants. 3. This office is founded in Government, and reposed in the King ; and it cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- A-G for the Straits Settlements v Pang Ah Yew
- Moukataff v British Overseas Airways Corpn
-
Hamilton v Clancy
...of the decree. C. N. K. (1) Before Madden and Molony, JJ. (1) L. R. 4 Q. B. 706. (2) L. R. 3 C. P. D. 1. (3) [1906] 1 K. B. 178. (4) 1 Lord Raymond, 646; 1 Salk. 17. (5) 2 Cowp. 754 (see Lord Mansfield's judgment at p. 765). (6) 2 W. Bl. 906; 3 Wils. 443. (7) 5 Burr. 2711. (8) 6 T. R. 646. ......
-
Jones v Monsell
...Bench. Before WHITESIDE, C. J., O'BRIEN and FITZGERALD, JJ. JONES and MONSELL. Lane v. Cotton 1 Lord Raym. 646. Whitfield v. Lord Le Despencer Cowp. 754. Tobin v. The QueenENR 16 C. B. N. S. 310. Macbeath v. HaldimondENR 1 T. R. 172. Hawkins v. HaldimondENR 6 De G. M. & G. 1. Hawkins v. Gat......
-
Of Kings and Officers — The Judicial Development of Public Law
...NT v Mengel (1996) 185 CLR 307, 356–7. It is not apparent to the writer that he did. See, for example, his dissent in Lane v Cotton (1701) 1 Ld Raym 646; 91 ER 1332. 71 (1704) 1 Brown 62; 1 ER 417. 72 (1828) 5 Bing 92, 107; 130 ER 995, 1000. See also Eyre CB in Sutton v Johnstone (1786) 1 T......
-
Public Trusts, Public Fiduciaries
...against such 'trustees' _____________________________________________________________________________________ 12 Cf Lane v Cotton (1701) 1 Ld Raym 646, 648. 13 See, eg, Driscoll v Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co 86 A 2d 201, 222–3 (1952) which, though a modern case, captures much of the essenc......