Commercial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Murray

D. Maryland

Commercial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Murray

182 F. Supp. 724, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3033

CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland

DecidedApril 11, 1960

DocketCiv. No. 10885

StatusPublished

This text of 182 F. Supp. 724 (Commercial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commercial Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Murray, 182 F. Supp. 724, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3033 (D. Md. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

This is an action for $2,500,000 filed against two postal inspectors on the same day plaintiff was indicted for mail fraud by the Grand Jury of this District. Defendants have moved to dismiss on several grounds.

This is not an action against the United States. The court will take jurisdiction to determine whether the complaint alleges any acts by the defendants for which the law makes them personally liable in tort. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 686, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628.

But it is clear that the complaint does not state a claim against defendants upon which relief can be granted. The acts of defendants alleged in the complaint were within the scope of their duties as postal inspectors, and they are immune from civil liability therefor. Yaselli v. Goff, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 396, 56 A.L.R. 1239, affirmed per curiam, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395; Cooper v. O’Connor, 69 App.D.C. 100, 99 F.2d 135, 139, 118 A.L.R. 1440; Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780; Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 572, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434; Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 579; O’Campo v. Hardisty, 9 Cir., 262 F.2d 621, 624; 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 361, 22; 39 U.S.C.A. § 692; 5 U.S.C.A. § 369; Reorganization Plan # 3, 1949, P.O.Dept., § 1(b), 5 U.S.C.A. § 369 note; 39 C.F.R. 4.2(a); Postal Manual, 1956, §§ 811.6, 822.1, 822.11.

The motion to dismiss the complaint is hereby granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

This is an action for $2,500,000 filed against two postal inspectors on the same day plaintiff was indicted for mail fraud by the Grand Jury of this District. Defendants have moved to dismiss on several grounds.

This is not an action against the United States. The court will take jurisdiction to determine whether the complaint alleges any acts by the defendants for which the law makes them personally liable in tort. Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 686, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628.

But it is clear that the complaint does not state a claim against defendants upon which relief can be granted. The acts of defendants alleged in the complaint were within the scope of their duties as postal inspectors, and they are immune from civil liability therefor. Yaselli v. Goff, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 396, 56 A.L.R. 1239, affirmed per curiam, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395; Cooper v. O’Connor, 69 App.D.C. 100, 99 F.2d 135, 139, 118 A.L.R. 1440; Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 498, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780; Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 572, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434; Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 579; O’Campo v. Hardisty, 9 Cir., 262 F.2d 621, 624; 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 361, 22; 39 U.S.C.A. § 692; 5 U.S.C.A. § 369; Reorganization Plan # 3, 1949, P.O.Dept., § 1(b), 5 U.S.C.A. § 369 note; 39 C.F.R. 4.2(a); Postal Manual, 1956, §§ 811.6, 822.1, 822.11.

The motion to dismiss the complaint is hereby granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 F. Supp. 724, 1960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-savings-loan-assn-v-murray-mdd-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack