Crough v The London and North Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1854 |
| Date | 17 January 1854 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 105
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 7 Railw. Cas. 717; 2 C. L. R. 188; 23 L. J. C. P. 73; 18 Jur. 148; 2 W. R. 166. See Nugent v. Smith, 1875-76, 1 C. P. D. 23, 423. Referred to, Bamfield v. Goole and Sheffield Transport Company, Limited, (1910) 2 K. B. 116.
crouch v. the london and north-western eailway company. Jan. 17, 1854. [S. C. 7 Eailw. Cas. 717; 2 C. L. B. 188; 23 L. J. C. P. 73; 18 Jur. 148; 2 W. E. " 166. See Nugent v. Smith, 1875-76, 1 C. P. D. 23, 423. Eeferred to, Bamfield v. Goole an i Sheffield Transport Company, Limited, [1910] 2 K. B. 116.] One who holds himself out as a carrier of goods between two places one of which is beyond the confines of England, is still subject to the common law liability of a carrier for hire, and is bound to accept all goods which are reasonably tendered to him for conveyance between those limits.-A common carrier has no general right to refuse to receive a parcel tendered to him for conveyance, unless informed of the nature of its contents.-A railway company acting as common carriers, and bound by statute to deal equally with all persons, cannot make a regulation for the conveyance of goods, which in practice affects one individual only. By an order of nisi prius, dated the 12th of February, 1853, it was ordered by the court, with the consent of all parties, their counsel and attorneys, that a verdict should be entered for the plaintiff, damages 5001, costs 40s..; but that such verdict should be subject to the award, of a barrister, to whom the said cause was thereby [256J referred: And by the like consent it was thereby also ordered-that the arbi trator, on request by either party, should raise and state.any points of law for the opinion of the court, by the award, or otherwise, and might defer making any final award until the opinion of the court should have been given on any point or points so raised before the making of the award, and which opinion should be binding on the said arbitrator. The arbitrator, after reciting the order as above, and further reciting that he had taken upon himself the burthen of the reference, and had heard the parties and the evidence adduced before him, and considered the same, and had been requested by both parties to raise and state the under-mentioned points of law for the opinion of the- court, and had, at the like request of both parties," deferred making his award until the opinion of the court should have been given on the points so raised, -in order to raise the said questions of law for the opinion of the court, found the following facts :-. Both the plaintiff and the defendants carry on the trade of carriers; and the action is brought for the refusal by the defendants to carry certain parcels for the plaintiff, from London to Glasgow, and from London to Sheffield, respectively, under the circumstances hereinafter set forth. C. P. xvii.-4* 106 CROUCH V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN KLY. CO. 14C.B. 257. The declaration contained thirteen counts: but the questions arose on the first and seventh counts, and the pleadings thereto. The first count stated that the defendants, before and at the times thereinafter mentioned, were common carriers of goods and chattels for-hire, from Euston Square station, in'the county of Middlesex, to Glasgow, in Scotland; that thereupon, theretofore, to wit, on the 10th of October, 1850, the plaintiff caused to be tendered to the defendants, they being such common ear-[257J-riers as aforesaid, at Euston Square station aforesaid, being the place by them then used in the way of their said business as common carriers for the receipt of parcels and goods to be by them carried and conveyed as such common carriers as aforesaid, a certain package of the plaintiff containing divers goods, to wit, fifty gross of steel pens, one silver watch, five dozen of forks, five dozen of spoons, and fifty pieces of plate of the plaintiff, of great value, to wit, of the value of 2001., and then requested the defendants to receive and to carry and convey the same from Euston Square station aforesaid to Glasgow aforesaid; that the defendants then had ample convenience for receiving and carrying and conveying the same according to the said requirement of the plaintiff in that behalf, and the plaintiff was then ready and willing, and then offered to pay to the defendants such sum of money as the defendants were legally entitled to receive, for the receipt and carriage and conveyance of the said package of goods from Euston Square station aforesaid to Glasgow aforesaid, and all other charges whatsoever which the defendants were then authorised or entitled to make or receive for the receipt, carriage, and conveyance of the said package of goods in manner as aforesaid, to wit, the'siim of 4s. lOd.; and the defendants then had notice of the premises : Yet the defendants, not regarding their duty as such common carriers as aforesaid, but contriving and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure the plaintiff, though they did receive as aforesaid, and carry and convey, the goods of divers other persons on that occasion, from Euston Square station aforesaid to Glasgow aforesaid, did not nor would, at the said time when they were so requested as aforesaid, nor at any time afterwards, carry or convey the said package of goods from Euston Square station aforesaid to Glasgow aforesaid, at or for the said sum of money so offered to them by the plaintiff as aforesaid, or [258] otherwise, but wholly neglected and refused so to do, though they might and could and ought as such carriers to have received, carried, and conveyed the same as aforesaid, at and for the sum of money aforesaid; whereby the plaintiff was then forced and obliged to and did procure the said package of goods to be carried and conveyed from Euston Square station aforesaid to Glasgow aforesaid, at much greater expense than the said sum of money so offered by him to the defendants as aforesaid, to wit, the expense of 10s., and was also delayed in the conveyance of the said package as aforesaid, for a long time,.to wit, forty-eight hours then next following. The seventh count stated that the defendants, before and at the times in that count after mentioned, were common carriers of goods and chattels for hire, from Euston Square station aforesaid, to Sheffield, in the county of York; that thereupon, theretofore, to wit, on the 21st of October, 1850, the plaintiff caused to be tendered to the defendants, they being such common carriers as aforesaid, at Euston Square station aforesaid, being the place by them then used in the way of their said business as common carriers for the receipt of parcels and goods to be by them carried and conveyed as such common carriers as aforesaid, a certain other package of the plaintiff, containing divers goods of the plaintiff, to wit, one hundred dozen of shoes, one hundred dozen of books, and one hundred pieces of music, of great value, to wit, of the value of 201., and then requested the defendants to receive and to carry and convey the same from Euston Square station aforesaid to Sheffield aforesaid; that the defendants then had ample convenience for receiving and carrying and conveying the same according to the said requirement of the plaintiff in that behalf, and the plaintiff was then ready and willing, and then offered, to pay to the defendants such sum of money as the defendants were legally entitled to re-[259]-ceive for the receipt, carriage, and conveyance of the last-mentioned package of goods from Euston Square station aforesaid to Sheffield aforesaid, and all other charges whatsoever the defendants were then authorised or entitled to make or receive for the receipt, carriage, and conveyance of the said last-mentioned package of goods in manner aforesaid, to wit, the sum of 2s. 5d.; and the defendants then had notice of the premises : Yet the defendants, not regarding their duty as such common carriers as aforesaid, but contriving and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure the plaintiff, though they did WC.B.260. CROUCH V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RLY. CO. 107 receive as aforesaid and carry and convey the goods of divers other persons on that occasion from Euston Square station aforesaid to Sheffield aforesaid, did not nor would, at the said time when they were so requested as aforesaid, or at any time afterwards, carry or convey the last-mentioned package of goods from Euston Square station aforesaid to Sheffield aforesaid, at or for the said sum of money so offered to them by the plaintiff as aforesaid, or otherwise, but wholly neglected and refused so to do, though they might and could and ought, as such common carriers, to have received, carried, and conveyed the same as aforesaid at and for the last-mentioned sum of money; whereby the plaintiff was then forced and obliged to, and did procure the said package of goods to be carried and conveyed from Euston Square station aforesaid to Sheffield aforesaid at much greater expense than the said sum of money so offered by him as aforesaid, to wit, the expense of 10s., and was also delayed in the conveyance of the said package of goods for a long time, to wit, forty-eight hours then next following. To these counts the defendants pleaded the following pleas,-first, not guilty,- second, to the first count, that they the defendants were not common carriers of goods and chattels for hire from Euston Square station, in the [260] county of Middlesex, to Glasgow, in Scotland, in manner and form, &c.,-thirty-second, to the seventh count, a similar plea to the second, mutatis mutandis,-fifty-seventh, to the first ten- counts, that, at the time of the making of the tender of each of the packages in those counts mentioned, the defendants requested the plaintiff to inform them of the contents of such package, with which request the plaintiff always...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alton v The Midland Railway Company
...4th edit,. 501; Garpue v. The London and Brighton Railway Company, 5 Q. B. 747; Crouch v. The London and North-ffestern Railway Company, 14 C. B. 255. The 86th section of the 8 & 9 Viet. c. 20, which enacts that " it shall be lawful for the company to use and employ locomotive engines or ot......
-
Belfast & Ballymena Railway Company, in Error, v Keys. Londonderry & Coleraine Railway Company, in Error, v Same
...Bing. 54. Coggs v. BernardENR 2 Ld. Raym. 109. Stuart v. CrawleyENR 2 Starkie, 323. Crouch v. London and North Western Railway CompanyENR 14 C. B. 255. Forward v. PittardENR 1 T. R. 27. The Great Northern Railway Company v. Sheppard 8 Ex. Rep. 30. Walker v. JacksonENR 10 M. & W. 161. Crouch......
-
Nugent v Smith
...654; 12 Mod. 472; Barclay v. Y'gana, 3 Dougl. 389 ; Forward v. Pittard, 1T. E. 27; Grouch v. London and North-Western Railway Company, 14 C. B. 255; 23 L. J. 73, C. P. ; Bennett v. The Peninsular Steam, Boat Company, 6 C.B. 775; Jones on Bailments, p. 103; Story on Bailments, us. 489,490; A......
-
Keys v Belfast and Ballymena Railway Company, The Londonderry and Coleraine Railway Company and William M'
...Great Western Railway Co.ENR 7 Ex. 699. Great Nothern Railway v. Shepherd ENR 8 Ex. 39. Crouch v. London and North-Western Railway Co.ENR 14 C. B. 255. Coop v. Eyre 1 H. & Bl. 37. Muschamp v. The Lancaster and Preston Railway Co.ENR 8 M. & W. 421. Scothorn v. The South Staffordshire Railway......