Branley v The South Eastern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1862 |
| Date | 12 May 1862 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 1066
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 286; 6 L. T. 258; 9 Jur. N. S. 329. Referred to, Great Western Railway v. Sutton, 1869, L. R. 4 H. L. 237.
. bran ley ,v. the south eastern railway company. May 12th, 1862. [S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 286 ; 6 L. T. 458; !) Jur. N. S. 329. Referred to, Great Western ; ! Railway v. Sutton, 1869, L. R. 4 H. L. 237.] The legality of a contract is determined by the lex loci coritractua.-A railway company incorporated for the conveyance of passengers and goods from London to Folkstone under acts of parliament which prohibited them from making unequal charges, obtained another act enabling them to establish a communication by steam-vessels with Boulogne, which last-mentioned act contained no provision as to equality of rates for the carriage of goods. There was nothing in the law of France which disabled the company as public carriers from making such contracts for that purpose us they might think most for their own interest. The company by their tariff' charged certain rates for small parcels, with a double charge for " packed parcels : " -Held that, so far as regarded the contract for the carriage of such parcels from Boulogne to London, there was nothing illegal in this increased charge. This was an action brought against the South Eastern Railway Company to recover k sums alleged to have been improperly exacted by them from the plaintiff' for the carriage of parcels from Boulogne to London. The declaration consisted of a count for money received and for money found due upon accounts stated. The defendants pleaded never indebted. The cause was tried before Erie, C. J., at the sittings in London after last Trinity Ternvwhen the following facts appeared in evidence :-The plaintiff' is a carrier whose business it is to collect small parcels at Boulogne, to be forwarded to London, via Folkstone, by means of what are called " packed parcels " addressed to Messrs. Wheatley & Co., Leadenhall Street, London, [64] and to receive in like manner parcels from London for distribution at Boulogne. The defendants are a railway company also carrying en business as carriers from London to Dover arid Folkstone under the authority of the 6 W. 4, c Ixxv., and several subsequent statutes (a), and also carrying on a communication by means of steam-vessels between the ports of Folkstone and Dover, and those ef Boulogne and Calais, under the authority of the 16 & 17 Viet, c. clvi. By the 17th section of one of their acts, 2 Viet. o. xlii., the company were bound to charge to all. persona alike for the conveyance of the like goods under the like circumstances (b) ;i and by their tariff, which was put in, a certain scale of charges was provided for paireela and packages up to the weight of 112lbs., with an intimation that " paeked parcels "'would be charged [65] double those rates. The company's right to this increased charge for packed parcels was negatived by this court in the case of (a) The 7 W. 4 & 1 Viet. c. xciii., 2 & 3 Viet. c. xlii., 2 & ;j Viet. c. Ixxix., 3 & 4 Viet, c. xlvi., 5 & 6 Viet. Sess. 2, c. iii., 6 & 7 Viet. cc. li., Hi., and Ixii., 7 & 8 Viet. cc. xxv., Ixix., and xci., 8 & 9 Viet. cc. clxvii., clxxxvi., cxcvii., and cc., 9 & 10 Viet, cc. lv., Ivi., & Uiv., cccv., and cccxxxix., 10 & 11 Viet. cc. civ. and ccxxx., 13 & 14 Viet, c. xxxi., and 15 Viet. c. ciii. (h) " The charges by the said recited acts or either of them authorized to be made for the carriage of any passengers, goods, animals, or other matters or things to be conveyed by the said company, or for the use of any steam-power or carriage to be supplied by the said company, shall be at all times charged equally to all persons, and afteti the same | rate per mile, or per ton per mile, in respect of all passengers, and of all gpods, animals, or carriages of a like description, and conveyed or propelled by a like carriage orlengine passing on the same portion of the line; and no reduction or advaince in anyi charge for conveyance by the said company, or for the use of any locomotive powbr to bo supplied by them, shall be made either directly or indirectly in favour of or against any particular company or person travelling upon or using the sama portion of the said railway." 12 C. B. (N. S.) 66. BBANLEY V. THE SOUTH EASTERN RLY. CO. 1067 Pidilington v. The Scnitk Eaxfem liailmiij Uanqiaity, ante, vol. v., p. Ill, where the contract was made in Loiulmt, for the conveyance of [tanked parcels to Boulogne : and the question \vas whether the same rule was to be applied to parcels delivered to the company at Boulogne to be delivered in London. On the part of the plaintiff, it was insisted that the contract, having been made in France, though it was to be performed in England, was to be governed by the French law; and to;prove this M. Jules...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doolan v Midland Railway Company
...THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY. Peek v. The North Staffordshire Railway CompanyENR 10 H. L. C. 473. Branley v. S. E. Railway CompanyENR 12 C. B. (N. S.) 63. The East Anglian Railway Company v. The Eastern Counties Railway CompanyENR 11 C. B. (N. S.) 775. Colman v. The Eastern Counties Railway ......
-
Grell and Another v Levy
...in the contract:" per Erie, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the court in Bra.nl.ey v. Tlie South Eastern liailwo.y (Jcnnpany, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 63, 72. The fact that the action was brought in an English court is an accident. [Williams, J. The question ia, whether we must not hold it to ......
-
Le Couteur against The London and South Western Railway Company
...C. C. N. S. 272). [Mellor J. In that case there was no land carriage in England at all.] Branley v. The South Eastern Railway Company (12 C. B. N. S. 63) shews that the acts regulating railways here do not apply to the sea transit to France. [Lush J. Haa not this point been decided by the C......
-
Baxendale and Others v The Great Western Railway Comtany
...& B. 77, Jiaxeiulale v. The, fa-eat Western. Railway Company, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 63, and Braiiley v. The Mouth Eastern Railway Company, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 63; and to the statutes 7 & 8'Vict. c. iii., s. 50, 8 & 9 Viet. o. 20, s. 90, 10 & 11 Viet. c. ccxxvi., ss. 52, 53, and 17 & 18 Viet. e. 31, ......