## Facts

- The steamships **Winkfield** and **Mexican** collided in fog off the coast of South Africa.
- Both ships were damaged, and the **Mexican sank**, causing loss of cargo, including **mail** being carried under the Post Office’s custody.
- Some passengers, crew, and portions of mail and luggage were saved, but other mail was lost with the Mexican.
- The **owners of the Winkfield admitted liability** for the collision damage and a limitation fund was established for distribution among claimants.
- The **Postmaster-General**, who had lawful custody of the mail as bailee, filed a claim for the value of **lost mail for which no sender or addressee had made a claim** (i.e., mail with no identified claimant instructing that a claim be brought).
- The claim was **refused** at first instance because the Postmaster-General was **not legally liable** to compensate the persons interested in that mail for the loss, and therefore was said to lack a recoverable loss.
- The Postmaster-General **appealed**, arguing that lawful possession of goods is enough to sue a third-party wrongdoer for the goods’ full value, regardless of the bailee’s liability (or lack of liability) to the true owners.

## Issues

1. Whether a **bailee in possession** who is **not liable over** to the bailors/true owners for the loss may nonetheless recover the **full value** of destroyed goods from a third-party tortfeasor.
2. Whether a third-party wrongdoer may defeat or reduce the bailee’s recovery by relying on the true owners’ rights (**jus tertii**) when the wrongdoer does not claim through those owners.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal **allowed the appeal** and held that the Postmaster-General could recover for the lost mail despite having **no legal liability** to compensate the senders or addressees.
- The court treated the Postmaster-General’s **lawful possession** as sufficient title, as against the negligent wrongdoer, to recover the **full value** of the goods lost.
- The court rejected the argument that the wrongdoer could rely on the Postmaster-General’s lack of liability to the true owners to limit damages.
- The court held the wrongdoer could not raise **jus tertii** to resist the claim unless defending under the third party’s title.

## Legal Principles

- A **bailee (or other lawful possessor)** of goods may sue a third-party wrongdoer for **the full value of the goods** lost or damaged by the wrong, even if the bailee would not be liable to the bailor/owner for that loss.
- As between **possessor and wrongdoer**, **possession is treated as title**; the wrongdoer generally may not set up the rights of a third party (**jus tertii**) unless the wrongdoer claims through that third party.
- The wrongdoer is not entitled to have damages reduced by pointing to the internal allocation of risk between bailor and bailee; any question of who ultimately should receive the proceeds is handled **between the bailee and those entitled** to the goods or their value.
- The rule prevents a negligent defendant from escaping liability merely because the immediate possessor’s relationship with the true owner would have left the possessor without an obligation to reimburse the owner.

## Conclusion

Postmaster-General v. Owners of the S.S. Winkfield holds that a bailee with lawful possession may recover the entire value of goods lost through a third party’s wrongdoing even when the bailee has no liability to the true owners, and the wrongdoer cannot rely on jus tertii to defeat or limit that claim; any later accounting for the recovery is a matter between the bailee and the persons entitled to it.


Postmaster-General v. Owners of the S.S. Winkfield, [1902] P. 42 (C.A. 1901)