Boswell v North British Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 30 January 1902 |
| Docket Number | No. 99. |
| Date | 30 January 1902 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Kincairney, Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Trayner, Lord Moncreiff.
CarrierRailwayGoods in custody of carrier seized by officer of lawConsequential Damages.
A delivered to a railway company at Peebles a box for carriage to a consignee in Edinburgh. At Edinburgh the box, while in the custody of the railway company, was opened by a Fishery officer, who took possession of a salmon contained in it.
Thereafter a criminal prosecution was raised against A for having in her possession a salmon known by her to have been taken from the Tweed in close time. A was tried and acquitted.
A then raised an action of damages against the railway company for her expenses in defending the action and for solatium, averring that the damage had been caused by the fault of the defenders in allowing the box to be opened and the salmon removed without a legal warrant, and by their breach of the contract of carriage.
Held (in aff. judgment of Lord Kincairney) that there was no relevant averment of fault on the part of the defenders in the way of breach of contract or otherwise to support a claim for damages.
This was an action of damages at the instance of Miss Margaret Boswell, Peebles, against the North British Railway Company for breach of contract of carriage.
The pursuer averred that on 19th October 1900 she delivered to the defenders at Peebles a tin box containing a salmon caught in the River Tweed, and some articles of clothing, to be delivered by the defenders to a consignee in Edinburgh; that the defenders accepted the box and agreed to forward it to Edinburgh; and that a contract of carriage was thereby entered into between the pursuer and defenders. (Cond. 4) On said 19th October 1900, while the said tin box was in the custody of the defenders' servants at Waverley Station, Edinburgh, it was, with the knowledge and approval of the defenders, and of their general manager and servants, seized, taken possession of, and opened by an officer of the Forth Fishery District. Subsequently, on same day, the said officer took possession of said salmon, which was never received by the consignee of said box. The said Fishery officer, in opening said box, and in seizing and retaining possession of the said salmon, acted illegally and unwarrantably. He had not the authority of the pursuer, or of any magistrate, for acting as he did. The said Fishery officer opened said box, and took possession of said salmon, and retained possession thereof, with the object of using, or attempting to use, said salmon in a criminal prosecution of the pursuer, in order to secure her conviction of an offence in connection with said fish, under the Tweed Acts.
The pursuer further averred that on 24th November 1900 she was charged at the instance of the Procurator-fiscal of the county of Peebles with having had, on 19th October 1900, in her possession a salmon, known by her to have been illegally taken in the River Tweed during the annual close time, contrary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khan v Hussain
...1083; [2015] 2 All ER (Comm) 281; [2015] 2 Lloyd's Rep 61; [2015] BCC 343; [2015] 1 BCLC 443; [2015] BVC 20 Boswell v North British Rly (1902) 4 F 500; (1901) 9 SLT 263 Brown Jenkinson & Co Ltd v Percy Dalton (London) Ltd [1957] 2 QB 621; [1957] 3 WLR 403; [1957] 2 All ER 844; [1957] 2 Lloy......
-
Lochaber Power Company v Assessor for Inverness-shire., North British Aluminium Company v Assessor for Inverness-shire
...appeared in their account books. 2 (1902) 4 F. 520, at p. 524. 3 1922 S. C. 460, at p. 483. 4 Oakbank Oil Co. v. Assessor for MidlothianUNK, 4 F. 500, at p. 5 Scottish Greyhound Racing Co. v. Assessor for Glasgow, 1929 S. C. 285, at p. 290. 6 Ayr County Council v. Assessor for AyrSC, 1935 S......