Raisler v. Oliver

• Decision Date: 24 January 1893
• Parties: RAISLER, POSTMASTER, v. OLIVER ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

12 So. 238

97 Ala. 710

RAISLER, POSTMASTER, v. OLIVER ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 24, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Limestone county; H. C. Speake, Judge.

Action by W. L. Oliver & Co. against Charles W. Raisler, postmaster to recover for moneys contained in a registered letter, and alleged to have been lost through defendant's negligence. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint filed in this case contained two counts. The first count, after alleging that the defendant was, on and before February 26, 1890, United States postmaster at Athens, Ala "through which, to all points in the United States, the public were and are allowed and authorized to send registered packages and letters," and after alleging that on February 26, 1890, the plaintiffs registered with and handed to the defendant, as such postmaster, two letters, properly and legally stamped, and addressed to certain parties in Nashville, Tenn., containing money, further averred "that thereupon it was and became the duty of the defendant, as such postmaster, to prudently and promptly make delivery of said letters to the United States postmaster or messenger in the mail car on the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, a mail route running daily, directly from Athens Ala., to Nashville, Tenn., the destination of said letters to be by said postmaster or messenger transmitted to the United States post office at Nashville, Tenn.," for the persons to whom said letters were addressed. The first count then continues: "And the plaintiffs aver that the defendant, by or through his negligence, carelessness, and fault, failed to make delivery of said letters to said postmaster or messenger on said car, whereby said United States currency, the property of the plaintiffs, of the value of one hundred and fifty-nine dollars and twenty cents, was never received at its point of destination, was and is lost to plaintiffs, and plaintiffs were and have been put to great expense and trouble, all to the injury of the plaintiffs in the sum of five hundred dollars. Hence this suit." The second count, after alleging that the defendant was the postmaster at Athens on February 26, 1890, and that the plaintiffs registered and handed to the defendant, as such postmaster, two letters, properly and legally stamped, and addressed to certain parties in Nashville, and that the defendant duly and legally receipted to the plaintiffs for said letters, further alleged: "And the plaintiffs aver that said letters never arrived at their destination, were never received at the post office at Nashville, Tenn., and were lost, whereby said United States currency, the property of the plaintiffs, of the value of one hundred and fifty-nine dollars and twenty cents, was lost to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were put to great expense and trouble, all to the injury of the plaintiffs in the sum of five hundred dollars. Hence this suit." The defendant demurred to each of said counts on the following grounds, respectively: (1) That it showed no cause of action, in that, if the defendant was liable at all, he was liable in his official capacity, as postmaster. (2) Because plaintiffs' complaint was brought against the defendant as an individual, and seeks to fasten liability upon him in his official capacity. (3) Because there was a repugnancy between the party made defendant and the party sought to be charged with liability. Upon the hearing of these demurrers the court overruled the demurrer to the first count, but sustained the demurrer to the second count.

On the trial of the cause, upon the introduction of one Goode as a witness for the plaintiffs, he testified that on February 26 1890, he registered for the plaintiffs at the post office at Athens, Ala., among others, the two letters, for the failure to deliver which the present suit was brought, and that the said letters were registered with one William Cain, who gave him receipts therefor. The defendant objected to the introduction of the evidence that the letters were registered with Cain, as irrelevant, and duly excepted to the court overruling his objection. The witness Goode further testified that the defendant was present at the time of said registration, but, being engaged, instructed the said Cain to attend to the registering for him. The plaintiff's testimony further tended to show that the letters were registered by the said Goode with Cain, that they were never received by the persons to whom they were addressed, and that the plaintiffs have been deprived of the money contained in them. Upon the introduction of one Lentz as a witness for the plaintiff, he testified, among other things, that, after the letters were discovered to have been misplaced, he had a conversation with the defendant about them, and that the defendant told him "that it might have been through his [defendant's] negligence that the letters were lost." The defendant objected to this last statement of the witness, and duly excepted to the court overruling his objection. Upon the introduction of said William Cain as a witness in defendant's behalf, and after testifying that he was a sworn assistant of the defendant, and had registered the letters involved in this suit, but was unable to give any account of them, the defendant offered to prove by said Cain as tending to show his competency to fill the position of assistant, "that, a short time previous to his employment by the defendant as assistant postmaster, he had occupied the same position under a former postmaster in the same office." The plaintiffs objected to the introduction of this evidence, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant, in several ways, undertook to prove the competency of said Cain to be his assistant, and that he (Cain) attended to the registering of most of the letters. The plaintiffs separately objected to each portion of such evidence, the court sustained each separate objection, and the defendant separately excepted thereto. The defendant also offered to prove by the witness Cain that he (the defendant) was a prudent man, and careful in the discharge of his duties as postmaster; but the court sustained plaintiffs' objection to this testimony, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant introduced as a witness one Frank Little, who testified that he was a United States post-office inspector; and the defendant...