Court Opinion

ID: 9447583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:38:16.258883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:06.103240
License: Public Domain

STALEY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent from the majority holding that the court is without jurisdiction. My reasons are as follows.
Section 751 of 39 U.S.C.A. clearly excepts from its provisions certain powers which are specifically given to the Postmaster General by 39 U.S.C.A. § 768, which provides as follows:
“Powers of Postmaster General as to designation of offices, compensation of superintendents and inspectors, office hours, and regulations as to deposits and withdrawals. The Postmaster General shall select and designate the post offices which are to be postal savings depository offices, and shall appoint and unless otherwise provided by law, fix the compensation of such superintendents, inspectors, and other employees as may be necessary in conducting, supervising, and directing the business of such offices, including the employees of a central office at Washington, District of Columbia, and shall prescribe the hours during which postal savings depository offices shall remain open. He shall also from time to time make rules and regulations with respect to the deposits in and withdrawals of moneys from postal savings depositories and the issue of pass books or such other devices as he may adopt as evidence of such deposits or withdrawals.” (Emphasis supplied.)1
Under this section the Postmaster General, it seems to me, is the one who is clearly empowered to enter into the contract of deposit with the depositor, covering his deposits and withdrawals. In addition, the United States is pledged to pay the deposits, and it also receives all profits from the operation. 39 U.S. C.A. §§ 759, 766;2 Farley v. Albers, *1271940, 72 App.D.C. 136, 112 F.2d 401. That case also is authority for the prop-position that the United States is an in-dispensible party to any action involving the fund.3
Since the contract is one made with the Postmaster General under the clear authority of Section 768 of 39 U.S.C.A., by virtue of the Act of June 25, 1948, c. 646, 62 Stat. 933, as amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a), known as the Tucker Act, it is enforcible against , the United States in an action brought in a United States district court.4
The majority cite the cases of Leka v. United States, 1930, 69 Ct.Cl. 79, and United States v. Stewart, 9 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 492. It may be pointed out that Leka was decided in 1930 and Stewart in 1941. In neither of these cases was jurisdiction asserted under the provisions of the Tucker Act, supra. Lastly, the United States Attorney, on behalf of the United States, has filed a supplemental brief contending that there is jurisdiction in the district court and for the very reasons set forth herein.
On the merits, I would reverse. I need not express my reasons therefor at this time as the majority has not reached this issue.

. See United States Government Organization Manual 1960-1961, pages 230-231; and Letter of Deputy Postmaster General, dated April 19, 1957, contained in 2 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 1958, pages 3508-3509.

. “Faith of United States pledged to payment of deposits. The faith of the United States is solemnly pledged to the payment of the deposits made in postal savings depository offices, with accrued interest thereon as provided in sections 751-756, 757-764, and 766-767 of this title.” 39 U.S.C.A. § 766.
It is inconceivable to me that this in and of itself does not constitute a contract
*127between the United States and a depositor.

. The majority contends that under Reorganization Plan No. IV, 54 Stat. 1234, 5 Eed.Reg. 2421, effective June 30, 1940, certain functions were transferred to the Board of Trustees. I need only note that Section 768, which granted specific powers to the Postmaster General, was reenacted in 1958. In any event, I think that the Board of Trustees of the Postal Savings System is as much a part of the Executive Branch of the government as is the Postmaster General, and thus its regulations and directives are also embraced by the provisions of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a).

. The Postal Savings Depositories Act provides that deposits for any one person under the Act may not exceed $2500. Thus, it would appear that most of these depositors are people of limited means. The majority opinion would relegate a depositor for the recovery of his deposit to the State courts in those cases where, as here, the deposit has been improperly paid out to a third person. The difficulty of framing an issue and the technical procedures which obtain in most States would result in great expense to the depositor for the recovery of the money which rightfully belongs to him. It is clear, after a reading of. the entire Act, that Congress never intended that such be the case.