Austin and Davis v The Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Date | 01 January 1850 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 138 E.R. 181
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 7 Rail. Cas. 300; 21 L. J. C. P. 179; 16 Jur. 763; see also 16 Q. B. 600. Referred to, Shaw v. Great Western Railway, [1894] 1 Q. B. 382.
austin and another v. the manchester, sheffield, and lincolnshire railway company. [S. C. 7 Bail. Cas. 300 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 179 ; 16 Jur. 763; see also 16 Q. B. 600. Eeferred to, Shaw v. Great Western Railway, [1894] 1 Q. B. 382.] Horses were delivered to a railway company, to be carried by them from A. to B,, for hire, subject to a note or ticket containing the following notice :-" This ticket is issued subject to the owner's undertaking to bear all the risk of injury by conveyance and other contingencies; and the owner is required to see to the efficiency (b) See Note A. at the end of volume xi. 182 AUSTIN V. THE MANCHESTER, ETC.-, RAILWAY CO. 10C.B.455; of the carriage, before he allows his horses or live stock to be placed therein; the charge being for the use of the railway, carriages, and locomotive power only, the company will not be responsible for any alleged defects in their carriages or trucks,-unless complaint be made at the time of booking, or before the same leave the station; nor for any damages, however caused, to horses, cattle, or live stock of any description, travelling upon their railway, or in their vehicles :"-Held, that, giving to the words of the contract their most limited meaning, they must apply to all risks, of whatever kind, and however arising, to be encountered in the course of the journey; and, therefore, that the company were not responsible for injury done to a horse from the firing of a wheel, in consequence of the neglect of the servants of the company to grease it. This was an action upon the case against the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, to recover damages for the loss of a horse [455] which was killed whilst being conveyed on the defendants' railway from New Holland, in the county of Lincoln, to Shoreditch. The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendants, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, were the owners and proprietors of certain railways, to wit, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railways, and were possessed of certain carriages and trucks used by them for the carriage and conveyance of passengers, and horses, cattle, goods, and chattels, on certain journeys in and upon and along the said railways and certain other railways, to wit, the East Lincolnshire Eailway, and Eastern Counties Bail way, from a certain place, to wit, New Holland, in the county of Lincoln, to a certain other place, to wit, the Shoreditch station of the Eastern Counties Railway, in the county of Middlesex, and to divers other places upon the several railways aforesaid, for hire and reward; and did, before and at the time of the committing of the said grievances, exercise and carry on the business of common carriers for hire; and were commonly employed to carry and convey passengers, horses, cattle, goods, and chattels, from New Holland aforesaid to the said Shoreditch station, and from and to divers other places in, upon and along the said railways: That, during all the time aforesaid, according to the usual and known course of business there practised and observed by the defendants and persons employing them to carry passengers, horses, cattle, goods, and chattels by the said railway, it was incumbent upon, and the duty of, the defendants to cause due and proper care to be taken, and proper and reasonably sufficient provision to be made, from time to time, during any such journey as aforesaid, on which any passengers, horses, cattle, goods, or chattels were being conveyed by the defendants, in order to guard [456] and provide against the friction of and arising during the said journey from the wheels and axles of the said trucks and carriages wherein such passengers, horses, cattle, goods, and chattels were being carried and conveyed, and the parts of the said trucks and carriages near to and in contact and connected with the said wheels and axles, and in order to guard and provide against fire being produced by such friction, and to preserve such carriages and trucks as last aforesaid, and the wheels and axles thereof, and other such parts thereof as aforesaid, from being broken and injured by such friction and fire as aforesaid; and, during all the time aforesaid, according to the said course of business then practised and observed by the defendants and persons so employing them as aforesaid, the said persons so employing them had no power or control over the management of any of the said trucks or carriages during any such journey as aforesaid, nor were they permitted or allowed to do any such things as were proper or necessary to guard against such friction and fire as aforesaid, or to preserve the said carriages, trucks, wheels, axles, or other parts aforesaid, from being broken and injured, and without certain reasonable and proper provisions being made against such friction and fire as aforesaid during such journies as aforesaid, passengers, horses, cattle, goods, or chattels, cannot, and could not at the time aforesaid, be safely carried or conveyed in such trucks and carriages by or along the said railways: That the plaintiffs, theretofore, and whilst the defendants were such carriers as aforesaid, and whilst such course of business as aforesaid was observed and practised, to wit, on the 23rd of February, 1849, delivered to the defendants, to wit, at New Holland aforesaid, that is to say, at the railway-station there, divers horses, mares, and geldings, to wit, thirty horses, &c., of the plaintiffs, of great value, to wit, of [457] the value of 6001., to be carried and conveyed by the defen- -IOC. B. 458. AUSTIN V. THE MANCHBSTEE, ETC., RAILWAY CO. 183 dants for the plaintiffs, to wit, in and upon divers, to wit, three, of the said trucks and carriages, and in and upon and along the said railways, for hire and reward to the defendants in that behalf, to wit, for the charge thereinafter mentioned, from New Holland aforesaid, to the Shoreditch station aforesaid, according to the usual and known course of business so practised and observed as aforesaid, except so far as the same was altered or qualified by certain terms expressed as thereinafter mentioned in a certain note or ticket then by the defendants prepared and produced to the plaintiffs : That it was in and by the said note or ticket expressed, that the sum charged to the plaintiffs in respect of the premises, was the sum of 221. 10s., being 71. 10s. for each of the said three trucks; and that the said ticket was issued subject to the plaintiffs' undertaking to bear all the risk of injury by conveyance, and other contingencies; and that the plaintiffs were required to see to the efficiency of the carriages before they allowed their horses or live stock to be placed therein; and that, the charge being for the use of the railway, carriages, and locomotive power only, the defendants would not be responsible for any alleged defects in their carriages or trucks, unless complaint was made at the time of booking, or before the same left the station, nor for any damages, however caused, to horses, cattle, or live stock of any description, travelling upon the said railways, or in the defendants' vehicles : That the defendants then accepted and received from the plaintiffs the said horses, mares, and geldings, to wit, upon the day and year last aforesaid, to be so carried and conveyed as aforesaid, according to the usual and known course of business then practised and observed as aforesaid, except so far as the same was varied or qualified by such terms as aforesaid : And that, although they, the defendants, did [458] then and there, to wit, at New Holland aforesaid, so as aforesaid accept and receive of and from the plaintiffs the said horses, mares, and geldings, for the purpose aforesaid, and did then and there place them in and upon clivers, to wit, three of the said trucks and carriages of them, the defendants, for the -purpose of being carried and conveyed as aforesaid,-the efficiency of which said trucks and carriages the plaintiffs then saw to, and were satisfied with, before the said horses, mares, and geldings were placed therein ; and the said horses, mares, and geldings were then booked, and the said trucks and carriages, with the said horses, mares, and geldings therein, then left the said station, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ICDL GCC Foundation FZ-LLC and Others v European Computer Driving Licence Foundation Ltd
...Rep. 235. The "Ardent" [1997] 2 Lloyd's L. Rep. 547. Armitage v. Nurse [1998] Ch. 241. Austin v. The Manchester, etc., Railway Company(1850) 10 C.B. 454; 138 E.R. 181. Beal v. The South Devon Railway Company (1864) 3 H. & C. 337; 12 W.R. 1115, 159 E.R. 560, [1861-73] All E.R. Rep. 972, 11 L......
-
ICDL GCC Foundation FZ-LLC and Others v European Computer Driving Licence Foundation Ltd
...Devices BV v Zurich Insurance Company [2005] IESC 12, [2005] 1 IR 274; Austin v Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company (1850) 10 CB 454; Beal v South Devon Railway [1861] All ER Rep 972; BNY Trust Company (Ireland) Ltd v Treasury Holdings [2007] IEHC 271, (Unrep, HC, Clarke ......
-
McManus v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
...ground that the vehicle was safe and proper for the journey. In Austin v The Majichebtet, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company (10 C. B. 454), the terms of the notice were sufficiently large to include a loss arising from gross negligence. Secondly, the condition is unreasonable and v......
-
AHP Manufacturing v DHL Worldwide Network (no 2)
...SS PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD V QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD 1989 1 LLOYDS REP 319, 1991 1 LLOYDS REP 288 & 1988 1 S & B AV R vii 313 AUSTIN V MANCHESTER 138 ER 181 Synopsis: Contract Law Contract; breach; contract for carriage of goods; consignment damaged; plaintiff claims for the value of the consignme......