United States v. Warfield

• Citation: 170 F. 43
• Decision Date: 13 March 1909
• Docket Number: 792,793.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. WARFIELD et al. (two cases).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

170 F. 43

UNITED STATES v. WARFIELD et al. (two cases).

Nos. 792, 793.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

March 13, 1909

The condition of each bond was as follows:

'Now the condition of this obligation is such, that if the said S. Davies Warfield shall faithfully discharge all the duties and trusts imposed upon him, either by law or the rules and regulations of the Post Office Department of the United States, and shall perform all of the duties and obligations imposed upon and required of him by law or the rules and regulations of the said department, in connection with the money order business, then this obligation to be void; otherwise of force.'

The condition of the bonds alleged to have been violated reads as follows:

'That if the said S. Davies Warfield shall faithfully discharge all of the duties and trusts imposed upon him, either by law or the rules and regulations of the Post Office Department of the United States * * * then the above obligation to be void; otherwise of force.'

One of the duties imposed upon the defendant in error as postmaster was the proper disbursement of funds placed in his hands by the government. The substance of the allegation is that the defendant in error, as postmaster, paid a salary for a certain time to one John W. Pettit, to wit, a salary of $600 per annum to him as clerk from July 19, 1898, to September 22, 1899, and $1,500 to him as bookkeeper from September 22 1899, to September 10, 1903, although no work was done by Pettit in the Baltimore Post Office for such salary.

It appears: That John W. Pettit was placed upon the eligible list by the defendant in error as postmaster under the direction of the Post Office Department, and afterwards was appointed to a clerkship under the civil service law also by the direction of the Post Office Department at Washington. That the appointee was assigned to duties outside of the post office at Baltimore, and the defendant in error was required by the department to pay out of the funds in his hands the salary of the appointee, which was regulated also by the Post Office Department. That the defendant in error used the blanks which were required by the Post Office Department and entered the certificate which was necessary in order to make the payments to the appointee regular, etc.

John C. Rose, U.S. Atty., and Morris A. Soper, Asst. U.S. Atty.

Edgar H. Gans and N. P. Bond (W. Irvine Cross, on the brief), for defendants in error.

Before PRITCHARD, Circuit Judge, and WADDILL and BOYD, District Judges.

PRITCHARD Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

This case comes before us on a writ of error to the court below. The plaintiff below instituted an action to recover a certain sum claimed to be due by the defendant below S. Davies Warfield on account of certain money placed in his hands as postmaster at Baltimore, and which it is alleged was paid to one John W. Pettit without warrant of law.

It appears that the vouchers taken by the defendant in error at the time the disbursements were made by him were signed by the clerk, and that in pursuance of the same the money was actually paid to the clerk in each instance. The said clerk had been appointed on the authority of the First Assistant Postmaster General, who also made an allowance to the defendant in error for the payment of such sums to said clerk out of the moneys appropriated by Congress for the support of the Post Office Department with which to pay said clerk. The defendant in error, as his bond required, was simply discharging his duty in the manner he was advised it was proper for him to do by his superior officer, and was obeying the regulations of the Post Office Department as his bond required him to do. There is no claim that the defendant in error fraudulently colluded with others to defraud the plaintiff, or that there was any conspiracy the object of which was to secure the payment of said sums to the clerk mentioned.

Every dollar of the amount sought to be recovered was paid out, not simply with the knowledge, but by the direction, of the Post Office Department.

Section 388 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 218), among other things, provides that:

'There shall be at the seat of government an Executive Department to be known as the Post Office Department, and a Postmaster General, who shall be the head thereof. * * * '

Section 396 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 224) provides that:

'It shall be the duty of the Postmaster General: First. To establish and discontinue post offices. Second. To instruct all persons in the postal service with reference to their duties. * * * Seventh. To superintend the disposal of the moneys of the department. * * * '

While these duties are imposed upon the Postmaster General, he does not, as a matter of course, perform all such duties personally. He is authorized by law to appoint assistants, and these assistants are designated by him as chiefs of the several branches of the postal service subject only to the supervision and direction of the Postmaster General, and by them the duties assigned are performed. However, their acts are the acts of the Postmaster General when confined within the scope of the duties assigned to them by their chief. Parish v. U.S., 100 U.S. 504, 25 L.Ed. 763.

Among other things, the Postmaster General as the head of the Post Office Department promulgates certain rules known as 'postal regulations.' Postmasters are controlled by the Postmaster General in accordance with these regulations and are instructed with reference to their duties through the First Assistant Postmaster General. It is provided by the postal rules and regulations with respect to the duties of the First Assistant Postmaster General as follows:

'To this office is assigned the general care of postoffices and postmasters and their instructions. The adjustment of salaries of presidential postmaster and the consideration of allowances for clerical hire, rent, fuel, light, furniture and miscellaneous expenditures.'

It should be borne in mind that the bond declared upon by the United States in this case, among other things, contains a condition to the effect that the obligor shall faithfully perform all the duties imposed upon him by the rules and regulations to which we have just referred. Therefore the defendant in error, being a subordinate of the Post Office Department, was by the condition of...