32 L. Ed. 203
U.S.
1888
Me. Justice Blatcheoed,

after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that there was error in the charge of the court, and that the defendant was ‍​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍not liable for the wrong, if any, cоmmitted by his subordinates, on the facts of this case. There is nothing in the evidence to connect the defendant personally with any such wrong. No evidence was given that the officers in question were not competent, or were not properly selected for their respective positions. The subordinate who was guilty of the wrong, if any, would undoubtedly be liable personally for the tort, but to permit a recovery against the collector, on the facts of this case, would be to establish a principle which would paralyze the public service. Competent persons could not be found to fill positions of the kind, if they knew they would be held liable for all the torts and wrongs committed by a large body of subordinates, in the discharge of duties which it would be utterly impossible for the superior officer to discharge in person.

This principle is well established by authority. It is not affected by the fact that a statutory action is given to аn importer, to recover back, in certain cases, an excess of duties paid under protest; nor by the fact that a superior officer may be held liable for unlawful fees exacted by his subordinate, where lawful fees аre prescribed by statute, and where such fees are given by law to the superior, or for the act of a deputy performed in the ordinary line of his official duty as prescribed ‍​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍by law. The government itself is not responsible for the misfeasances, or wrongs, or negligences, or omissions of duty of the subordinate officers or agents employed in the public service; for it does not undertake to guarantee to any person the fidelity of any of the officers or agents whom it employs; since that would involve it, in all its operations, in endless embarrassments, and difficulties, and lossеs, which would be subversive of the public interests. Story on Agency, § 319 ; Seymour v. Van Slyck, 8 Wend. 403, 422; United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720, 735; Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall. 269; Whiteside v. United States, 93 U. S. 247, 257 ; Hart v. United States, 95 U. S. 316, 318; Moffat v. United States, 112 U. S. 24, 31; Schmalz’s Case, 4 C. Cl. 142.

The head of ■ a department, or other superior functionary, is not in a different position. A public officer or agent is not responsible for. the misfeasances or рositive wrongs, or for the nonfeasances, or negligences, or omissions of duty, of the sub- agents or servants, or othеr persons properly employed by or under him, ‍​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍in the discharge of his official duties. Story on Agency, § 319.

In Keenan v. Southworth, 110 Mass. 474, it was held, that a рostmaster was not liable for the loss of a letter* occasioned by the negligence or wrongful conduct of his clerk. The court said: “ The law is well settled, in England and America, that the .postmaster general, the deputy postmasters, and their assistants and clerks, appointed and sworn as required by law, are public officers, each of whоm is responsible ¿for his own negligence only, and not for that of any of the others, although selected by him and subject to his orders.” The court cited, to sustain this view, Lane v. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646; S. C. 12 Mod. 472; Whitfield v. Le Despencer, Cowp. 754; Dunlop v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 242; Schroyer v. Lynch, 8 Watts, 453; Bishop v. Williamson, 2 Fairf. (Maine), 495; Hutchins v. Brackett, 2 Foster (22 N. H.), 252.

To the same purport are Bailey v. The Mayor, 3 Hill, 531; Conwell v. Voorhees, 13 Ohio, 523, 543; Story on Bailments, §§ 462, 463; 1 Bell ‍​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍Com. 468, 5th ed.; 2 Kent Com., 4th ed., 610, 611.

The very question here involved came before the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, in the case of Brissac v. Lawrence, 2 Blatchford, 121, in June, 1850. The defendant was the collector of the port of New York.' Imported goods belonging to the plaintiff had been deposited in a custom-house warehouse, and were either lost or mislaid there, or were delivered to some person not entitled to them. At the trial it was sought to show carelessness on the part of the defendant, as the head of the custom-house department, in the manner in which the books ‍​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‍of the warehouse were kept, and alsо that the book-keeper was a person of intemperate habits and unfit for the situation. On the other hand, it was рroved that the books were kept in conformity with' the mode usually adopted at the time for keeping books of that kind; that the intemperate book-keeper had been discharged ; and that, during a period of nineteen months, out of two hundred thousand packages of goods which had been received at the warehouse in question, оnly two packages had been lost. Mr. Justice Nelson, in charging the jury, submitted to them the question whether the collector had been guilty of personal negligence in respect to the goods. In the course of the charge, the сourt said: “ The collector is not personally responsible for the negligence of his subordinates in the custom-hоuse department, and, therefore, he is not responsible for the negligence of persons employed in the warehouse department. ... In order to charge the defendant with the loss, it is necessary that the plaintiffs should satisfy yоu, by affirmative and responsible testimony, that the collector was personally guilty of negligence in the discharge of his duty, either by misdeed or by omission. . . . This is a'suit against the collector, who did not have charge of the goods ; and, in order to render him liable, you must find him to have been guilty of personal neglect, misfeasance, or wrong. . . . In view of the faсt that the collector of New York has charge of all the business from which two-thirds of the entire revenue of the Unitеd States is collected, and has thousands of subordinates, and upon the evidence that only one package out of every one hundred thousand which passed through the hands of those subordinates has been lost, it is strange that this сase has been so urgently pressed, with the idea that, upon any principle of equity, much less of law, there cоuld be any liability on the part of the collector.” The jury found a verdict for the defendant. (See, also, United States v. Brodhead, 3 Law Reporter, 95 ; Wharton on Agency, § 550.)

The judgment of the Ci/rcuit Court is reversed, a/nd the case is remanded to that court with a direction to grant a new trial.