HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0955 and id is 1 raw text is: EASTER TERM, 13 WILL. 3. IN B. R.
sentence of deprivation against him, and the fee full of another who acted de facto;
and there cannot be two bishops of a diocese, and the sentence of deprivation was set
aside as void ; yet it was resolved, that all institutions and inductions, &c. by the
colourable bishop were good, as if done by a rightful one ; and shall not the same
reason hold here? Another case, stronger rather than this, is that of 1 Leon. 288,
cited at the Bar; my Lord Darcy's case, who being lord of a manor, made a steward,
with power to make a deputy; and the steward, instead of making a deputy, sends
his servant to hold the court, and in that court a surrender was made; and though
it was said there, that a subsequent act of the lord's amounted to a confirmation, it
could not avail as such, if there were no copyhold tenant before, and in by surrender
and admittance. Vide 4 Co. 25. And if it works by way of confirmation, it must
have wrought upon the estate granted by the surrender to the servant; and yet that
surrender was not at any real court, nor could the lord's subsequent agreement
amount to a grant, and he is copyhold tenant no otherwise than by the surrender to
the servant; and surely if a servant may hold a court to take a surrender, he may
take one out of court, and the lord's consent after could only make it undefeasible,
but not give a being to his estate.
CASE 796. LANE against SIR ROBERT COTTON.
[Referred to, Mersey Docks v. Gibbs, 1866, L. R. 1 H. L. 111 ; 11 H. L. C. 712
Bennett v. Bayes, 1860, 29 L. J. Ex. 227. Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General [1906],
1 K. B. 186.]
The post-master general is not liable to an action for the recovery of Exchequer-bills
contained in a letter and delivered to a clerk at the post-office, and lost from the
office (a).-S. C. 5 Mod. 455. S. C. Salk. 17, 143. S. C. Comy. Rep. 100. S. C.
Carth. 487. S. C. 11 Mod. 12. S. C. Holt, 582. S. C. 1 Ld. Ray. 646.
In an action on the case the plaintiff declared, reciting the statute of 12 Car. 2,
c. 35, by which one general post-office, and one general post-master are erected, for
the sending of letters all over the three kingdoms, &c. and also the Statute of
Jac. 2, c. , and that Sir Robert Cotton was made post-master by letters patent of
the fifth of May, in the third year of William and Mary, pursuant to the said Act of
12 Car. 2, by which the said master has power to make deputy and deputies, and
other officers and servants under them, as they shall think fit; that the [473] said
master by these patents is to obey such rules and orders as shall be given him by the
King under the sign manual; and as to the revenues of the office, the master is to
observe the order and direction of the Lords of the Treasury ; and in the said letters
patent the King covenants, that he shall be only answerable for such miscarriage
and neglect as shall be his own, and not for that of any other body; and for the
executing of this office an annuity of fifteen hundred pounds a-year is granted him
out of the profits of the office : that the plaintiff being possessed of eight Exchequer-
bills in London did inclose them in a letter, directed to one Jones, a goldsmith in
Worcester, and delivered the said letter, with the bills so inclosed, to one B. then an
officer under the defendant, duly elected to take in, and deliver out, letters at the
office in London, to be sent according to the direction; that this B. received his
salary by the hands of the receiver-general ; and that the said letter, being so
delivered to him, was taken out of the office of London, by an unknown hand,
and lost.
The question was, whether an action lay against the post-master, or not ?
It was argued for the plaintiff, the office of post-master was an antient common-law
office, but exerciscable by any, and as many as would take it upon themselves;
against whom any person had his remedy for any damage that happened through
their default; this was the law before the said statute, whereby one general post-master
(a) It has also been decided, that an action will not lie against the post-master
general for a bank-note stolen by one of the sorters out of a letter delivered into the
post-office, Whitfeld v. Lord le Despencer, Cowp. 754.
1458
12 MOD. 473.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0955&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)