Nagle v. United States
| Decision Date | 28 February 1906 |
| Docket Number | 77. |
| Citation | 145 F. 302 |
| Parties | NAGLE et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
A. C Wade, for plaintiffs in error.
Chas H. Brown, for the United States.
Before LACOMBE, TOWNSEND, and COXE, Circuit D, and COXE, Circuit Judges.
The action is brought upon a postmaster's bond against the postmaster and his sureties. The condition of the bond is that:
'If the said Fred C. Nagle shall faithfully discharge all the duties and trusts imposed on him, either by law or the rules and regulations of the Post Office Department of the United States, and shall perform all other duties and obligations imposed upon or required of him by law or the rules and regulations of the said Department, in connection with the money order business, then the above obligation shall be void; otherwise, of force.'
Nagle was appointed postmaster of Dunkirk, N.Y., in February, but did not enter upon the duties of his office until May 1 1898. The breach assigned is that on May 2, 1898, Nagle recommended to the first Assistant Postmaster General that one John A. Link be designated and appointed as a laborer in the post office at Dunkirk from May 1st at a salary of $600 a year; that, pursuant to such recommendation, the First Assistant Postmaster General duly appointed him, and his name was placed on the pay roll, and Nagle thereafter paid him such salary from time to time, quarterly, aggregating to and including June 30, 1902, $2,500.55; that on said May 2d it was, and ever since has been wholly unnecessary and useless for the proper conduct of the business of that post office that Link or any other person should be designated and appointed as a laborer, as the said Nagle then and there well knew; that said Link never at any time since May 1, 1898, has performed any duties whatever, as laborer or otherwise, in the Dunkirk post office that would entitle him to any part or portion of the moneys so paid him, as Nagle then and there well knew; that Nagle paid the money to Link, then and there well knowing that the said Link had not performed any services whatever in said post office, as laborer or otherwise. It will be observed that two essentially different breaches are assigned; the one concerned with the original appointment, the other with the subsequent payments. The trial judge apparently relied upon the latter breach, for in directing a verdict for plaintiff for the full amount he said: 'Nagle defaulted his bond to the government when he permitted this man, Link, to receive remuneration-- receive emolument-- without doing the work for which he was hired. ' And again: 'Nagle violated his trust when he permitted Link to pay others to do the work for which he was hired. ' The plaintiffs in error, by requests to go to the jury separately on all the different issues, and by sufficient exceptions, timely reserved, have put themselves in position to argue the whole case here.
As to the first breach: The evidence showed (and, indeed, it would hardly need much proof to show) that besides the clerical work required in the Dunkirk post office, it was necessary that some one should keep the place clean. The furniture had to be dusted, the floor swept and sometimes scrubbed, litter removed, the windows washed, etc. Out attention is called to no statute not to any post office regulation which makes it the duty of a postmaster or of his clerks in a post office of the first and second class to scrub the floors and wash the windows. From the citations in the brief of the District Attorney, it may be inferred that Dunkirk is a first or second class post office. Whether the building in which it is located is owned by the government or leased does not appear; but certainly any one coming to fill the position of postmaster there might fairly assume that by a janitor or some other person regularly appointed or temporarily hired for the purpose the government of the United States expected that its post office should be kept clean and decent for the dispatch of public business. The defendant, as we have seen, did not take office till May 1st. The first he heard of Link in connection with the office was the day before, April 30th, when his predecessor handed him the following letter: 'Post Office Department.
'First Assistant Postmaster General, Salary and Allowance Division.
'Washington, April 28, 1898.
'Subject: Laborer.
'Postmaster, Dunkirk, N.Y.-- Sir: You are hereby authorized to appoint John A. Link as laborer in your office, at a salary of $600 per annum from May 1, 1898. Please report appointment on form A-- 45.
'Very respectfully,
Perry S. Heath, 'First Assistant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buffalo Basin Petroleum Co. v. Tanberg Oil Co.
...of the Leasing Act and the rules made thereunder. U. S. v. Gum, 58 P. 398; Caha v. U.S. 152 U.S. 211; U. S. v. Co., 165 F. 936; Nagle v. U.S. 145 F. 302; v. Midwest Co., 43 F.2d 23, 26. The lease was earned and was issued because the permittees had complied with the conditions of the permit......
-
Anderson v. Tway
...their admissibility in respect to statements clearly indicated as those of informants, whose accuracy is not guaranteed. Nagle v. United States, 2 Cir., 145 F. 302. If such statements are admissible then the faintest breath of rumor or scandal may be legitimized as evidence merely by includ......
-
GOLDENBERG v. Vill. OF CAPITAN
...a new trial at which the district court may first exercise its original jurisdiction in relation to the whole matter (Cf. Nagle v. United States, 2 Cir., 145 F. 302) leaving it open to either party to bring the judgment rendered before us for review if aggrieved thereby. Upon such review al......
-
Kiyoichi Fujikawa v. Sunrise Soda Water Works Co.
...to the Treasury Department receiver. To seek its probative value on appeal merits the comment of the Second Circuit in Nagle v. United States, 2 Cir., 145 F. 302, 306. However, assuming this appeal to be a trial de novo, we do not see that such instruction to his subordinates in any way rel......