case lane and other against cotton see S c Mod Mersey dock trustee v Gibbs l r  h l Bainbridge v postmastergeneral king b action on the case will not lie  against the postmaster for loss of exchequerbill and letter deliver in at a  underoffice S c Mod S c salk S c comy S c Carth S c Mod S c ld ray S c holt  this term the court of queen bench give judgement in this cause which have be  argue several term at the bar the case be thus in a action on the case the  plaintiff declare upon the statute car c which establish the generalpostoffice  set forth the say statute with the exception therein and then set forth that  he deliver several exchequerbill enclose in a letter cover at a certain place  unto a certain officer there appoint by the postmaster to receive letter and  parcel to be convey to the say generalpostoffice modern report which say  letter and bill so deliver miscarry and come not to the party hand to who they  be direct and on not guilty plead the jury find a special verdict in which all  the say matter set forth in the declaration be find and further that the say  generalpostmaster take security of his underofficer and that the letter cover  in this case be break open and the bill take out by a person unknown the  question be whether a action lie against the postmaster for the negligence of  his underofficer gold justice argue that judgement ought to be give for the  defendant and that upon consideration of the say Act of parliament first this  office be design by the statute to be a letteroffice only for the benefit of  commerce by the quick dispatch of intelligence and although it shall happen  that a letter shall miscarry yet no action will lie for this loss for though a  man may have a property therein yet that property be no one valor of no value  or esteem in law a but see now the statute Geo c S hawk p c that edit page a  especial if it be only the communication of a man mind and no obligation  contain in it and by this reason will this case be rule for though these bill  out of the exchequer be of value and trover will lie for they yet they be  convey here as letter and so shall not have a worse effect as to the  postmaster than letter modern report er p second here be no such thing as a  contract between the plaintiff and the postmaster for be be by a medium the  king officer but if there be any such thing as a contract it be between the  plaintiff and the underofficer who take the letter of the plaintiff and there  be a trust repose in the underofficer by the Act and though such underofficer  be name by the superior be be in as it be by the king suppose the postmaster  shall die the underofficer will be continue and their place be not void  thereby and then suppose this shall have happen in such vacancy then this  underofficer will undoubted be only Chargeable modern report three the statute  have provide that if any of the underofficer commit any fault they shall be  cashier or turnedout and so every officer by his superior and the headofficer  by the king as appear by the six and ten paragraph another consideration be  they be oblige to take in all letter and parcel bring to they if they may  refuse they it may be otherwise another be that they be oblige to make speed  and to travel by night when the law do not allow they the protection of the  statute of hue and cry a and then as to Mossess case cite on the other side  which be where good be put on board a ship to be send beyond sea and be steal  out of the ship in the port by the negligence of the master and adjudge the  master shall be answerable here be this difference between this and that case  that the master of the ship make his bargain for his carriage half of which be  pay down beforehand which be a contract and so at his peril be be to procure  safe carriage but in this case the recompense be not variable on the contract  of the party and their revenue or profit that arise out of this office be but  by accident and not by contract fourthly if there be a trust design by this  Act to be repose in the postmaster and the law allow the same trust to be in  he as in a carrier a master of a ship insurer c yet this particular case be  out of the Act of parliament for it be design by that Act that be shall only  take the trust of letter and not of treasure as these bill be powys justice  first consider the several statute that establish exchequerbill and upon the  whole conclude that they be not treasure nor of the nature of current coin his  chief reason be because no subject be oblige to take they in any payment  neither be they a sufficient tender and so they be thing that be not forbid to  be carry by the post if any person will venture they but second he urge that  the officer be not responsible for any thing that be lose by accident and no  misfeasance can be charge upon any of the modern report officer for the  special verdict find it to be do by a person unknown then be insist upon the  inconvenience the officer of the postoffice be force to undergo because they  be oblige to speed that they be often force to deliver the letter to the  servant c of the person to who they be direct and then when the party have  receive they safe he may be alone when he open they and though be do safe  receive such thing as these bill in a letter yet he may pretend he have lose  they and that they be oblige to travel on Sunday by night and in country out  of the king dominion they have not therefore the protection as other have in  case of robbery and then their premium be so small that it bear no proportion  to the trouble they have and if these action be encourage it will set up a  kind of insurance for carriage and in a little time destroy the office three  the postmastergeneral be not answerable for any neglect in the inferior  officer for he be but a fellowservant with they by the patent he have a salary  appoint for he and the underofficer for they and it be the king and not he  that be their paymaster and moreover the patent appoint their security to be  give to the king and all their salary be to be pay to they by the  receivergeneral out of the public revenue of the kingdom and the quantum be  settle by the patent and the postmastergeneral have his office durante bene  plea but it may be object that here may be a wrong sustain without any remedy  I answer it be often so when no person can be find against who to have the  remedy so here the verdict find it do per mask pardon a Edward saint c common  call the statute of Winton and Edward c modern report er p so be conclude  judgement for the defendant Turton justice be of the same opinion and upon the  same ground holt chief justice be of opinion that judgement ought to be give  for the plaintiff and he say it may be some question whether this action will  lie if thing have be lose upon the road in travel but it be find by the  special verdict in this case that they be lose modern report out of the office  all the argument relate to that be out of the case first this statute be make  for the public good and there be a trust repose in the postmaster and be be to  have the custody of the officer and the office and he be like the marshal of  the king bench or fleetprison who be entrust with the care of the prison   and  if their prisoner be free by any insurrection or tumult of the people they  shall not be excuse so the law intrust a sheriff with the good take upon a  become facias and he be to keep they for the plaintiff and must make he  satisfaction if lose and there be no difference between those instance and  this case second the subject pay a reward for carry letter and it be like the  case of a host who shall be Chargeable when he have a reward a jelly v clerk  hob cro James a and as to justice Goulds reason that there be no contract  between the party there needs none and where the subject entrust any one with  valuable thing he must have a remedy for they which here can be against none  but the postmaster it be resolve not long since that a action will lie against  the master of a ship for thing steal out of the ship because the master be  entrust with the care of they and yet as the postmaster have no advantage of  the profit of the office but have his salary from the king so the master of a  ship be pay by the owner b see Cowp where this position of Lord holt be  controvert by Lord Mansfield b three the same circumstance concur in this case  to make the defendant Chargeable as in the other case of a carrier or a master  of a ship c the reason which be give in the civil law for make a carrier  Chargeable and upon which our law no doubt be find be because a carrier may be  in correspondence with those that rob he and the like reason may be give here  as to the objection that a carrier be Chargeable because he may sue the  hundred it be not good for this action lie against he before the statute of  Winton and if be lose good out of his warehouse this action will lie against  he yet in that case he can sue the hundred if a smith modern report upon the  road refuse to shoe my horse I shall have a action upon the case against he e  Keilway c and here the postmaster be oblige to take in such thing as be within  the statute and these bill be proper to be send by the post for it appear by  the Act which limit what shall be carry that other thing than letter may be  carry and the Act seem to permit anything that be light of carriage to be  carry and though these bill be thing create since the Act of car c and so can  not be take notice of in that Act yet they be within the same reason as the  thing limit in the Act fourthly the postmaster here accept the letter under  the same condition for safe keep as in southcote case d   b d Southcote lend  the defendant his good safement garder and they be steal from he Southcote  recover in detinue for they it be grant that those who be postmasters before  the Act be liable and receive such letter and parcel under such condition of  safement garder and since it be not apparent the Act make any difference it  will be very hard to bar the subject of his action when the Act have bar he of  his choice for now he be confine to one postmaster whereas before he may  choose out of several five if a deputy be guilty of misfeasance a action will  lie against he but for the nonfeasance or negligence of a deputy the superior  be punishable and in this case if any misfeasance can be prove upon any  particular deputy as the take out of the bill by he he shall have be  punishable and if a deputy do any act which if do by a superior will be a  forfeiture of his office such act by a deputy will have the same effect as to  Mr justice Powyss argument who make the post modern report er p mastergeneral  a servant with the inferior officer I think otherwise because though they be  not under his pay yet they be under his direction and so be his servant beside  in other particular it appear by the Act itself that the postmastergeneral  shall be Accountable for the act of his inferior videlicet the clause relate  to the modern report provide of horse in that case if a deputy at York refuse  horse it be the postmastergeneral shall incur the forfeiture and a writ of  error be bring and allow on these reason of holt chief justice say qure quid  ind go for sale a the court of king bench give judgement for the defendant S c  comy Rep but Lord Raymond say he be inform that the defendant perceive that  the plaintiff intend to bring a writ of error on the say judgement pay the  money to the plaintiff S c ld ray and so put a end to all further proceed in  this case Lord holt ms Peer wms notorious facts but there be no trace in the  exchequerchamber of any writ of error have be bring nor in the postoffice of  the money have be pay Cowp this point however come before the court in easter  term Geo in the case of Whitfield v Lord dispenser in which it be determine  that a action on the case will not lie against the postmastergeneral for a  banknote steal by one of the sorters out of a letter deliver into the  postoffice Cowp a easter term the first of queen whether in the house of lord