Beal and Another v The South Devon Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 1860 |
| Date | 08 June 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 1431
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 29 L. J. Ex. 441: affirmed 1864, 3 H. & C 337.
5 S & N. ST6. BEAL V. THE SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY COMPANY 1431 bbal and another v the south devon eailway company. June 8, 1860.-A railway Company gave public notice that fish would only be conveyed on their line by special agreement and by particular trains; and that the sender should sign certain conditions, as follows :-" That the Company should not be responsible, under any circumstances, for loss of market, or for other loss or injury arising from delay or detention of trains, exposure to weather, stowage, or fiorn any cause whatever, other than gross neglect or fraud ." and they notified " that fish, under special conditions, would be conveyed by the 6.50 a.m , the 8.55 a.m. (and other named) trains, subject in all cases to the immediate convenience and arrangements of the Company." These conditions having been signed by a person sending fish by the railway Held, that they were just and reasonable conditions within tie meaning of the 17 & 18 Viet. c. 31, s 7, and that they constituted a valid contract binding upon the party who had signed them. [S. C. 29 L. J. Ex. 441: affirmed 1864, 3 H. & C 331.] Declaration. That the plaintiffs delivered to the defendants certain baskets containing fish, to be carried from Torquay to London, and there to be delivered to the plaintiffs within a reasonable time, for reward &c., and, in consideration thereof, the defendants promised the plaintiff's to carry and convey and deliver the said baskets and fish within a reasonable time: but though such reasonable time had elapsed, and everything had happened and been, done [876] necessary, &c ; yet the defendants did not carry, convey, or deliver the same within a reasonable time. There was a second count similar to the above. Pleas. First: Non assumpsit. Secondly. That the defendants did, within a reasonable time, carry, convey and deliver the said baskets and fish. Thirdly. That the terms in the declaration mentioned were and are as follows, that is to say, that the said baskets and fish would only be earned, conveyed and delivered, as in the declaration mentioned, by special agreement that the defendants skould " not be responsible, under any circumstances, for loss of market," &c. (setting out the conditions in the ticket hereinafter mentioned). that the breaches of promise in the declaration mentioned were the failure by the defendants to carry, convey and deliver the baskets and fish for a small and inconsiderable space of time only, to wit, two hours; at the end of which time the same were duly carried, conveyed and delivered to the plaintiffs ; and that the loss did not 111 any way arise from, out of, or through gross neglect or fraud, but through unavoidable delay and detention of trains, and from causes other than gross neglect or fraud. The plaintiffs took issue on the pleas At the trial, before Martin, B., at the last Devon Spring Assizes, the following facts appeared. The plaintiffs, who were dealers in fish, had foi many yeais been in the habit of sending fish to Billingsgate by the 6.13 P.M. train. This tiam preceded the mail train to Bristol, whence the fish was carried on by the mail tram to Paddington, The defendants would, at all times, forward fish by the mail train from Torquay, on being paid 10s. a ton extra. In oider to obtain a ready sale, it was necessary, as the defendants knew, that the fish should reach the market in proper time, and until the occasion in question, it had always done so On the 20th [877] of October, 1859, 282 bushels ot sprats, addressed to Messrs. Rous and Bacon, fish salesmen, Billingsgate, and 267 bushels of sprats, addressed to Mr. Heck, fish salesman, Billingsgate, were delivered by the plaintiffs at the Tor station of the defendants' railway, to be earned to Paddington. The cleliveiy of the sprats commenced about I P M. The plaintiffs saw the station master, between two and three o'clock, and told him that a large quantity of fish was coming, and that he had not sufficient hands. The plaintiffs said, "If you detain the fish till the mail train, don't charge the 10s. per ton extra." All the baskets were delivered at the station before 5 o'clock, and in time to have been despatched by the 6.13 tram The plaintiffs' men assisted in loading the trueks. The plaintiffs paid for the carriage of the fish, and signed a receipt note, which was as follows :- "South Devon Kail way. " Fish. " The South Devon Eailway Company hereby give notice, that fish will only be conveyed upon the railway by special agreement, aiid by particular trains, which aie 1432 BEAL V. THE SOUTH DEVON RAILWAY COMPANY 5H &N 87$. stated in the time bills of the Company ; also oil the express condition that the sender or has agent shall, in delivering the fish at the Company's station, or other place, when the same shall be loaded on the Company's carriages, sign the order and declaiation, a copy of which is subjoined, &c. " By order of the Directors," &c. "Fish, Fruit, and other Perishable Articles. " The South Devon Railway Company, "For themselves, and for the Great Western and Bristol and Exeter Railway Companies, give public notice, that neither of the said Companies will undertake to convey fish, game, &c., or other peiishable articles, over the said railways, or any of them, excepting under the general conditions published at the railway stations, in the time tables, [878] or other notices of the said Companies, and excepting under the following special conditions, viz..-That neither of the said Companies shall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Lloyd The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company v
...1 H. & N. 392. M'Manus v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & N. 693. Beal v. The South Devon Railway CompanyENR 5 H. & N. 875. Harrison v. The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company 6 Jur., N. S., 954; S. C., 2 B. & Sm. 122. Phillips v. EdwardsENR 3 H. & N. 813......