[Newspaper cuttings?]
The sureties of Andrew W. Smythe [Smyth?],
who was superintendent of the local branch
of the Mint during 1893, when a
box containing money was destroyed by
fire, will have to pay the government for
the loss of the money. The amount is
about œ25,000. The United States Circuit
Court of Appeals yesterday handed down
a lengthy opinion affirming the judgment
of the lower court. The case was
appealed on an error from the United States
Circuit Court for the eastern district
of Louisiana. The Court of Appeals found
that there was no error in the ruling of
the Circuit Court.
The case was argued before Judge Shelby,
circuit judge, and Judges Toulmin and
Newman, district judges.
Here is the opinion of the court, which was
read by Judge Toulmin :-
"This is a suit brought by the United
States against Andrew W. Smythe [Smyth?] and
the sureties on his official bond as
superintendent of the Unites States Mint at
New Orleans, to recover $25,000 which,
it is alleged, he received and failed to
account for, as required by the conditions
of his bond. The defendants excepted to
the petition on the ground that it did not
state a cause of action. The exception
was referred to the merits by order of the
Circuit Court; thereupon the defendants
filed answer of general denial, and
specially that the $25,000, the alleged
deficiency of defendant Smythe [Smyth?], was
occasioned by a fire in no way attributable
to him or his employees, which occurred
in the vault of the cashier of the Mint,
by which event the said sum, in the currency
of the United States, was burned and
destroyed; but the box containing the
same was turned over to the agents and
representatives of the plaintiffs for examination
and investigation; and that,
because of the destruction of said currency
by fire, the defendants were in no way
liable for this suit.
"Much evidence was offered pro and con
upon the issues presented by the answers,
but the evidence was without dispute
that there was a deficiency of $25,000
as shown by the defendant Smythe's [Smyth's?]
account with the government of the
moneys received by him as superintendent
of the mint. It also showed that the
government, by its representative, took
possession of the box referred to, and
that its expert was able to identify $1182
of the charred currency within, and that
the same is still in possession of the
government, and deposited in said Mint.
There was no exception to the motion to
strike out the special defence set up in
the defendant's answer, and there was
no objection to the introduction of
evidence in support of evidence in
support of that defence. On the
conclusion of the evidence, the court,
on motion of counsel for the plaintiffs,
directed a verdict for the plaintiffs, and
refused all charge requested by the
defendant.
"Judgment having been given for the
plaintiff, the defendants bring the case
here, and assign errors which raise the
following points, to wit:
"1. If the money representing the
deficiency sued for was destroyed by fire,
and such fire was not caused by the fault
or negligence of defendant Smythe [Smyth?],
the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover.
"2. If the alleged deficiency, $25,000 was
contained in a box in a vault of the
Mint, in the form of United States Treasury
notes, and all said money was destroyed
by fire, while so contained in
said vault, and the remains and debris
thereof were delivered by Smythe [Smyth?] to the
representative of the United States
government, who was authorised to receive
it, a verdict for the plaintiff cannot exceed
normal damages.
"3. The defendants are entitled to credit
for all burnt or charred money identified
and turned over to the United States
government.
"4. The defendants are only liable for
interest on the principal from the date of
the demand for the same upon the sureties
on Smythe's [Smyth's?] bond, from Feb. 9,
1894, and not from April 1, 1893, the day the
money was received by Smythe [Smyth?], as
allowed by the judgment."
After citing a number of authorities, the
court resumes :
"In some of the cases cited by us the
United States has, in effect, held that
while a receiver of public moneys is a
bailee, he is not an ordinary bailie, and
his obligations and liability do not
depend on the law of bailments, but are
measured by his bond. His liability is
not unlike that of a common carrier, who
is responsible for all losses except they
be occasioned by the act of God or the
public enemy. Irrespective of the views
hereinbefore expressed as to the defendant's
liability, we think the evidence
showed such want of care on the part of
the superintendent's cashier as to have
fortified the Circuit Court in directing
a verdict for the plaintiff. The official
bond of the defendant Smythe [Smyth?] was
conditioned for the faithful discharge of his
duties. Among those duties was the control
of the Mint under his official charge,
and the safekeeping, until legally withdrawn,
of all monies in his custody. He
is not relieved from liability to the United
States for acts, omissions or negligence of
his subordinates or employees. The duties
prescribed by the statute are as much a
part of the condition of his bond as if
the same were written therein. In this
case there was no proof that any claim
for credit of set-off was ever presented
to the proper officers and disallowed.
Besides, where a bond is not one to
indemnify against damage, but an affirmative
covenant to do specific things, no
damage is not a good plea. In suits or
claims of this character interest at 6
per cent per annum from the time of receiving
the money until it shall be repaid is recoverable.
"We find no error in the ruling of the
Circuit Court, and its judgment is affirmed."
