Acton v The Castle Mail Packets Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 1895 |
| Date | 11 July 1895 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Lord Russell, C.J.
Acton v. The Castle Mail Packets Company Limited
Parker v. The South-Eastern Railway Company 36 L. T. Rep. 540 2 C. P. Div. 416
Henderson v. StevensonENR 32 L. T. Rep. 709 L. Rep. 2 H. of L. Sc. 470
Harris v. The Great Western Railway CompanyELR 34 L. T. Rep. 647 1 Q. B. Div. 515
Carrier by sea — Passenger's luggage — Liability of shipowners for loss
MARITIME LAW CASES. 73 Q.B. Div.] ACTON v. THE CASTLE MAIL PACKETS COMPANY LIMITED. [Q.B. DIV. Thursday, July 11,1895. (Before Lord RUSSELL, C.J.) ACTON, v. THE CASTLE MAIL PACKETS COMPANY LIMITED, (a) Carrier by sea - Passenger's luggwje - Liability of shipowners for loss - Conditions on ticket Hi? it-ing liability - Notice of conditions - Liability of shipowner for robbery of gold - Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), a. 502 (2). Sect. 502 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 provides that the owner of a British seagoing ship shall not be liable for the loss by robbery without Ms actual fault, of any gold, silver, jewellery, &c, taken on board his ship, the true nature and value of which have not been declared. This section applies whether the robbery be committed by a passenger for whose act the shipowner would not be otherwise responsible, or by one of the servants. A passenger from Durban to London by the defendants' ship received a ticket which ?? to be a receipt for the passage-money. On the margin of the ticket were the words "Issued subject to the further conditions printed on the back hereof' and on the face of the ticket there was written and printed matter which the passenger saw but did not read. There was also this clause,"The owners do not hold themselves responsible for any loss, damage, or detention of luggage under any circumstances" and on the back there was an indorsement, " Conditions and Regulations," one of which was that " it is hereby agreed by the person holding this ticket that the owners will not be liable in any way for the luggage of passengers unless the passenger choose to pay Is. per cubic foot for luggage tnit under the owners' charge" A box. part of the passenger's luggage, containing money, jewellery, and papers, was during the voyage stolen, it was supposed by one of the crew. Held, that the terms and conditions on the ticket constituted the terms of the contract between the ?? and the shipowners; that the passenger ?? to have known that there were, conditions, and that he had, under the circumstances, reasonable notice of the conditions, and was bound by them, although he had not read the same, and that he, could not recover from the shipowners. Held also, that, apart from the special contract, the passenger was disentitled from recovering that part of the goods which consisted of gold and silver by reason of sect. 502, the value of the same not having been declared, and there being no actual fault on the part of the shipowners. ACTION tried before Lord Russell, C.J. without a jury. The action was brought for damages for loss of the plaintiff's goods, chattels, moneys, and effects in the defendants' ship the Tantallon Castle, whilst on a voyage from Durban to London, and the plaintiff claimed 3003. damages. The plaintiff sued the defendants, alleging that they are common carriers for hire, and that on the 4th May 1895 they received the plaintiff as a passenger for the purpose of being carried with his luggage in the defendants' ship, the Tantallon Castle, from Durban to London for reward to the defendants. He alleged that part of the luggage or baggage consisted of a despatch box containing money, jewellery, scrip, documents, promissory notes, and other securities, for money of the value of 3001., or thereabouts, and that these were lost on the voyage, being as he suggested, and as was probable, stolen by one of the crew, the box having been securely locked, and corded, and placed in a cabin set apart by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Cockerton v Naviera Aznar S.A.
-
Essa v Divaris
...class and educational standard of appellant are important factors. Richardson v Rowntree (894 A.C. 217); Acton v Castle Mail Packets Co. (73 L.T. 158); Marriott v Yeoward Bros. (1909, 2 K.B. 993); as to whether appellant agreed to be bound by the notice, cf. Davis v Lockstone (supra), Wiene......
-
Smitton v Orient Steam Navigation Company Ltd
...Railway Company (16 L. T. Rep. 485; L. Rep. 2 Q. B. 412, at p. 426) are obiter. Acton v. Castle Mail Packets Company Limited (8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 73; 73 L. T. Rep. 158; 1 Com. Gas. 135) and The Warkworth (5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 326; 49 L. T. Rep. 715; 9 P. Div. 20, and at p. 145) are disting......
-
Brown (R F.) & Company Ltd v T. & J. Harrison; sub nom Brown (RF) and Company Ltd v T & J Harrison, Hourani v T & J Harrison
...B. Div., at p. 342 Good v. London Steamship Owners' Mutual Protection Association L. Rep. 6 C. P., p. 563 The GlenochilDID=ASPMELR 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 73 L. T. Rep. 416 (1896) P., at p. 16 Rowson v. Atlantic Transport CompanyDID=ASPMELR 9 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 349 87 L. T. Rep. 717 (1903) 1 K......