Carthew lane versus cotton all to go into Pas will b r rot see SC Mod e r with  note the plead Mod Mod SC I salk SC vide ante action will not lie against the  postmaster for a letter miscarry in which there be exchequerbill d holt Ch  justice contra salk side Ro ab Plowd Mod Mod skin palm vent Mod keb keb Hern S  pleader case against the defendant cotton and franklin the general postmasters  set forth the statute car by which the postoffice be create and that in  pursuance of that statute a general postoffice have be erect and settle in  lombardstreet London and a post establish to carry letter from London to  Worcester and from thence back again to London and that the defendant be  constitute general postmasters by patent from king William and queen mary and  that the plaintiff be possess of two exchequerbill for l which he enclose in a  letter direct to such a person in Worcester and that he deliver the say letter  with the bill enclose unto the defendant in their office in lombardstreet and  that this letter with the bill be not convey to Worcester but lose by the  negligence of the defendant and their servant and all this matter be find  special the question be whether this action will lie against the defendant for  this neglect and nonfeasance and it be argue for the plaintiff that this  action be maintainable for the post Allen Carthew er p master be not appoint  only as officer to take care of the king revenue but as officer in pursuance  of the Act of parliament to take care of letter c so as to answer the end of  the statute which be to advance trade and commerce for the benefit of the  subject chief and not as a act for the revenue for that be but accidental and  though these officer be new create when the postoffice be first erect yet they  be under the same condition as officer at commonlaw and therefore liable to  ail action for breach of trust and a nonfeasance be as good a cause of action  against a officer of trust as a misfeasance I e for the neglect of any thing  which by the duty of his office he be oblige to do as in the case against  common carrier or for negligent keep fire this sufficient to declare in the  negative videlicet that the defendant have not do so c Carthew that where a  Act of parliament appoint a certain person to do such a thing and he neglect  to perform it by which negligence another be damnified he may have a action on  the case to recompense he for the damage and this not sufficient to say that  the defendant have not the prize for carriage of letter this true they have  not the whole but they have a salary which arise out of the prize and in that  respect this like the case of a sheriff who account for the profit of his  county and yet stand liable to action for any neglect of his duty and as to  the case of a master of a ship where the care of provision be in the purser  yet the master stand liable for the default of the purser but here the neglect  be not in a stranger but in a officer under the defendant for this find that  breeze to who the letter be deliver be place in the office by the defendant  and they have power by the statute to remove underofficer and to supply their  place and the whole office be entire under the control of the defendant and it  be insist that there be no difference in law between a carrier of letter and a  carrier of other thing and that it be not material who have the recompense but  that the plaintiff have pay for the carriage of his letter that give he a  title to this action and though it shall be grant that this office be virtual  in the king for he can have a office actual yet the defendant be liable to  this action as the master of a ship be liable though another be the owner and  for this purpose the case of Morse and Sluice be rely on as the fraught of a  ship be the mother of wage to the sailor so if the fraught be lose the wage be  likewise lose so here the defendant S salary come out of the profit of the  office and if no profit they can have no salary and they have their salary as  well in consideration of their hazard as of their care in safe carriage of  letter and packet and by their care their hazard be lessen now if this action  shall not lie against the defendant the plaintiff will be without remedy for  no action will lie against breeze who receive the letter at the window and  throw it back into the office at the place appoint Carthew and this plain that  the statute car principal design to make all people safe by set up certain  person who shall be responsible for the safe delivery of letter and therefore  it take away the liberty of send they by any other hand the hackney coachman  be put under a regulation by a late Act of parliament and they day a annual  revenue to the crown yet still they remain liable for good deliver to they and  the multitude of underofficer and servant belong to the defendant be no excuse  to they for any negligence because they be oblige to answer for all of they  and though those underofficer give security to the king yet that do not alter  the case because they be servant to the defendant and they may take other  security of they for the statute do not give any direction concern that matter  and the clause in the defendant S patent that they shall not be answerable for  their underofficer make no alteration of the law this true this a royal  promise to indemnify they and the defendant know how to make use of it as such  this like a grant make to a sheriff that he shall not be answerable for his  bailiff which will be a void grant in respect to the subject Mod vent raym lev    Litt a Carthew er p last the very acceptance of a public office be a  undertake to perform it with care and diligence and the preamble of this Act  show that there be postoffices before therefore it can be suppose that this  statute which be make for the ease and benefit of the subject in respect to  commerce and trade shall abolish those old office where the officer be liable  for any negligence or miscarriage of letter and erect new office where they  shall not be liable on the other side it be argue for the defendant from the  nature of the office from the satallness of the prize and from the term upon  which the office be grant to they and first as to the nature of this office  this so for that extensive both at sea and land that this not reasonable the  chief officer shall answer for so great a number of underofficer and postbois  who be worth nothing and for a misfeasance every man be Carthew answerable for  himself but for a nonfeasance several person can be charge with a action in  the case of carrier and innkeeper there be a general undertake and they have  it in their power to secure themselves but this not so in this case for the  defendant have no possibility to secure themselves against the multitude of  servant which be of necessity to execute this office and the underofficer  though nominate by the defendant yet they be in under the king to who they be  responsible and give security the rate for postage be all fix with respect to  the bulk and weight and value and be so small that it can be intend a prize to  warrant the safe delivery of all letter bring into the office for jewel to the  value of l may be send in a letter the carriage whereof may not amount to one  shilling but the case of a carrier be different for he may refuse the carriage  of good unless pay in proportion to their value but the defendant can refuse  any letter for they must take in all which be bring to the office the grant be  such that the defendant have no mean to secure themselves against the  underofficer by take security c because all be to be take in the king name  which likewise differ this case from that of a common carrier beside here be  no express neglect find upon the defendant but only that the letter be deliver  to breeze who be nominate by they heretofore there be not any valuable thing  send by letter and the statute never intend that so great a charge shall be  lie upon the postmaster bill of exchange differ from these exchequerbill  because he who come to the possession of exchequerbill be thereby entitle to  the money but bill of exchange must be endorse and it seem that the carriage  of exchequerbill be not within the duty of this office because the statute by  which it be erect mention only the carriage of letter and packet and not a  word of the carriage of good or money but as for these matter any man may send  they by who he will Carthew now these exchequerbill be establish by Act of  parliament be thereby make current money for many purpose and therefore if  they be send enclose in a letter he who send they must make a special contract  with the master for the nature of they be such that he who have the possession  be entitle to the money so be as hazardous with respect to the care of the  postmaster as ready money it be dispatch and expedition which be require of  the post and therefore this necessary to ride by night when if rob there can  be no rend that against the hundred this true as to the furnish those with  horse who be Willing to ride post this such a duty that probable a action may  lie against the defendant for their neglect in not provide they but as to  letter they be only director as to the case of a master of a ship he be master  only of one vessel and he may be personal present therein and he be upon his  own contract and may agree for his prize in proportion to his care and hazard  which the defendant can do curian but by the opinion of three judge judgement  be give for the defendant against the opinion of holt chief justice who hold  that the action will lie Carthew er p