Collard v The South Eastern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 1861 |
| Date | 24 May 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 400
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 30 L. J. Ex. 393, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 950, 9 W R. 697, 4 L T. 410. Discussed, The Parana, 1877, 2 C. D 122.
collard v. the south eastern railway company May 24, 1861.-The plaintiff, a hop-grower in Kent, sent to London by the defendants' railway some pockets of hops consigned to a purchaser. The defendants kept the hops for some days on their premises in an open van whereby a small portion was stained by wet, and the purchaser rejected the whole as he was entitled to do by the custom of the market. The plaintiff dried the stained hops and they were rendered as good as ever for actual use, but the staining had depreciated the Market value of the bulk. The plaintiff sent the hops to a factor for sale, but at that time the market price of hops had considerably fallen from what it was at the time the hope ought to have been delivered. The defendants had no notice that the hops were sent to London for sale -Held : First, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as damages, the amount of the depreciation in the market value of the hops, and was not confined to the value of the portion actually damaged. 7B&N80 COtLARD V. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY 401 Secondly, that he was entitled to recover, as damages, the difference between the market price ou the day when the hops were sold and the day when they ought to have been delivered [S C. 30 L. J. Ex. 393, 7 Jur. (N. S.) 950, 9 W R. 697 , 4 L T. 410. Discussed, The Pat ana, 1877, 2 C. D 122.] The declaration stated, that the defendants were common camera of goods for hire upon and along certain railways, to wit, from Pluckley Station, in the county of Kent, to the Bricklayer's Arms Station, in the county of Surrey , and theretofore the plaintiff delivered to the defendants as such carriers, and the defendants as such cat i lets icceived from the plaintiff, certain goods, to wit, eight pockets of hops [80] of the plaintiff, to be safely and securely carried and conveyed for the plaintiff by the defendants, as such earners, from Pluckley Station afoiesaicl, to the Bucklayei's Anus Station aforesaid, and there, at the Biicklayei's Arms Station aforesaid, to be safely and securely delivered by the defendants for the plaintiff for leward to the defendants in that behalf. Yet the plaintiff says that the defendants, not regarding their duty in that behalf, did not not would safely or securely carry or convey the sard goods from Pluckley Station aforesaid to the Bricklayer's Arms Station aforesaid, nor there, at the Bricklayer's Arms Station aforesaid, safely or securely deliver the same goods for the plaintiff, nor did nor would the defendants, whilst they so had the caie and custody of the said goods for the purpose aforesaid, take due or propel care of the same, but the defendants during that time took so little and such bad caie of the same, and behaved and conducted themselves in so negligent, careless and impioper a manner, that by reason of such want of due and proper caie, and of such negligent, caieless, and improper conduct of the defendants in that behalf the said goods then became and were greatly wetted, damaged and injured and deteriorated in value, and the defendants delivered the same goods at the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (Heron II)
...if this had been a case of delayed delivery in carriage by land. For this has been long established by such cases as Collard v. South Eastern Railway Company 158 E.R. 400; Wilson v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company 142 E.R. 248; and Horne v. Midland Railway Company 7 C.P. 583; 8 C.P......
-
Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (Heron II)
...on the day of delivery and the market price on the day on which delivery should have been effected. Collard v. South Eastern Railway (7 H. & N. 79); Home & Anr. v. Midland Railway Conpany (L. R. 8 C. P. 131). I can see no reason why, in 1966, when steamships are hardly the comparatively mod......
-
Noblett v Leitrim County Council
...6 Cox, 370. (1) 1 N. I. J. 146. (2) 10 Jur. N. S. 160. (3) 34 I. L. T. R. 116. (4) [1915] 2 I. R. 85. (5) 2 Wils. 91. (6) 3 Doug. 61. (1) 7 H. & N. 79. (2) 34 I. L. T. R. (3) 35 I. L. T. R. 203. (1) 34 I. L. T. R. 116. (2) 10 Jur. N. S. 160. (1) 1 N. I. J. 146. (1) Unreported. (2) [1915] 2 ......
-
Irvine v Midland Reilway Company, Ireland
...DOWSE, BB. Wilson v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 9 C. B. (N. S. ) 632. Collard v. The South-Eastern Railway CompanyENR 7 H. & N. 79. Featherston v. WilkinsonELR L. R. 8 Exch. 122. O'Hanlon v. The great Western Railway CompanyENR 6 B. & S. 484. Simpson v. The London and G......