Case Name: James H. Keenan vs. John T. Southworth
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1872-10
Citations: 110 Mass. 474
Docket Number: 
Parties: James H. Keenan vs. John T. Southworth.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
James H. Keenan vs. John T. Southworth.
A postmaster is not liable for the loss of a letter occasioned by the negligence of his clerk.
Tort against the postmaster of East Randolph, to recover damages for the loss, by the defendant’s negligence, of a letter addressed to the plaintiff. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Pitman, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence, not now necessary to report, that the letter was received at the post-office at East Randolph, and was lost by the negligence or wrongful conduct of one Bird, who was the postmaster’s clerk. The plaintiff having disclaimed “ any actual participancy or knowledge of the acts of Bird on the part of the defendant,” the judge ruled that the defendant was not liable for any careless, negligent or wrongful acts of Bird; and, by consent of the plaintiff, he directed a verdict for the defendant, and reported the case for the consideration of this court. If the ruling was wrong, the verdict to be set aside, and the case to stand for trial; otherwise, judgment for the defendant on the verdict.
iS. E. Townsend, for the plaintiff.
B. W. Earns $ P. E. Tucker, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Gray, J.
The law is well settled, in England and America, that the postmaster general, the deputy postmasters, and their assistants and clerks, appointed and sworn as required by law, are public officers, each of whom is responsible for his own negligence only, and not for that of any of the others, although selected by him, and subject to his orders. Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646; S. C.12 Mod. 472. Whitfield v. Le Despencer, Cowp. 754. Dunlop v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 242. Schroyer v. Lynch, 8 Watts, 453. Bishop v. Williamson, 2 Fairf. 495. Hutchins v. Brackett, 2 Foster, 252.
The ruling at the trial was therefore right; and the plaintiff, having consented to a verdict for the defendant, reserving only the question of the correctness of that ruling, cannot now raise the question whether there was sufficient evidence of the defendant's own negligence to be submitted to the jury.
Judgment on the verdict.