Postal Service v. Konan · ¶39

Last, Konan proposes limiting “loss” to only “destruction.” She contends that the “primary” meaning of “loss” in 1946 was “destruction,” not any other kind of deprivation.Brief for Respondent 25–26.But, as we have explained, ordinary speakers referred to “losses” of mail, even when the mail was not destroyed.Judge Cardozo wrote that when an envelope fell behind a radiator in the post office, it caused the “loss” of the checks inside even though they were later recovered. Heinrich, 219 N. Y., at 4, 113 N. E., at 531.And, contempo- raneous regulations treated “loss” and “destruction” sepa- rately, not, as Konan suggests, synonymously.See, e. g., Postal Laws and Regulations §159 (1940 ed.) (delaying cer- tain procedures until officials have “determined that such loss, destruction, or damage resulted from no fault or negli- gence on the part of” a postmaster).Konan asserts that “destruction”…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.