Case ID: f_229/html/0397-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. v. UNITED STATES.
    
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    January 18, 1916.)
    No. 4391.
    Post Office <®=»10 — Embezzlement of Mail Matter — Liability of Sureties.
    Though, under the regulations of the Post Office Department, the government is only responsible, in case of the loss of a registered package, for an amount not exceeding $50, it can recover from the sureties on the bond of a postal employe, who embezzles a registered package containing a sum of money in excess of $50, the full amount lost, if not in excess of the penalty of the bond.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Post Office, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. <©=3l0J
    In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri; David P. Dyer, Judge.
    Action by the United States against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. Judgment for the United States, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    John M. Wood, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff in error.
    Arthur L. Oliver, of St. Louis, Mo., for the United States.
    Before ADAMS and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and TRIEBER, District Judge.
    
      
      Rehearing denied February 28, 1916.
    
   PER CURIAM.

The only issue involved in this case is whether, in view of the fact that under the regulations of the Post Office .Department the government is only responsible in case of a loss of a registered package for an amount not exceeding $50, it can recover from the sureties on the bond of its employé, who embezzled a registered package containing a sum of money in excess of $50, the full amount lost, provided it is not in excess of the penalty of the bond.

This identical question was before us in National Surety Company v. United States, 129 Fed. 70, 63 C. C. A. 512. It was there held that there could be such a recovery. This case is ruled by that decision, and it is unnecessary to add anything to it

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.