Garnett and Another against Willan and Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 October 1821 |
| Date | 26 October 1821 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 1113
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
gaknett and another against willan and jones. Friday, October 26th, 1821. A parcel which, with its contents, exceeded 51. in value, having been delivered to A. and B., common carriers, to be carried by their mail-coach, was accepted by them to be so carried, and was actually put into the mail, and carried by that conveyance a short distance ; it was then taken out of the mail-coach by a servant of the carriers, and left to be forwarded by another coach, of which A. was one of the proprietors, but in which B. had no concern, and the parcel was lost. The carriers had previously given notice that they would not be responsible for any package containing specified articles, or which, with its contents, should exceed 51. in value, if lost or damaged, unless an insurance were paid : Held, that, notwithstanding this notice, the carriers were responsible for the parcel in question, in consequence of their having delivered it to be carried by another coach, of which one of the carriers only was proprietor. This was an action on the case, brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants as common carriers, for hire from London to Worcester, to recover the [54] value of a parcel delivered to the defendants, to be carried by them from London to Worcester, and alleged to have been lost. Plea not guilty. The cause was tried at the London sittings after Trinity term, 1820, before Bayley J., when the jury found a .verdict for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case : The defendants, at the time of the delivery to them of the parcel, were the proprietors of the Worcester Mail-Coach, used;by them as common carriers, for the carriage of passengers and goods for hire. The plaintiffs, who resided at Worcester, wrote on the 17th September, 1819, to their correspondents in London, desiring to have two pieces of sarsenet sent to them "by the return of mail" Such sarsenet, of the value of 451. Os. 5d. was accordingly packed up on the 18th September, 1819, and duly booked at the coach office, at the Bull and Mouth Inn, from which the Worcester Mail proceeds, "as for the Worcester MailTCoach to Worcester." The 1114 GARNETT V. WILLAN 5 B, & AIJX 55. parcel was accordingly, by the defendants, put into the Worcester Mail-Coaeh at the Bull and Mouth Inn, and entered in the usual way-bill of that coach, as a parcel to be carried thereby from London to Worcester, and the same parcel was carried in the mail-coach, from the coach-office at the Bull and Mouth Inn, to a place called the Green Man and Still, in Oxford Street, at which the defendants have no office or servant, but where passengers and parcels are booked for the defendants' mail-coach, and there the same was taken out of the mail-coach, and left at the Green Man and Still, to be forwarded on the following day to Worcester by another Worcester coach, called the heavy coach, (in which the defendant John Jones had no interest,) and the entry in [55] the way-bill of the mail-coach was altered accordingly. The parcel was afterwards lost out of the heavy coach, but it did not appear by what means. Before the parcel was so booked, and delivered to be carried to Worcester by the mail, the defendants had caused the following public notice to be given, and the plaintiffs had notice thereof, " Take notice, that the proprietors of the public carriages, who transact their business at this office, will not b& answerable for any package containing cash, bank notes, bills, jewels, plate, watches, lace, silks, or muslins, however small the value, nor for any other package which, with its contents, shall exceed 51. in value, if lost or damaged, unless the value be specified, and an insurance be paid over and above the common carriage, when delivered here, or to any of their offices or agents in the different parts of the kingdom."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company
... ... , without prejudice to the Company's rights, if any, against the consignee or any other person. 9. When the ... ? Misfeasance differs widely from pure negligence: Garnett v. Willan ( 9 ); Steat v. Fagg ( 1 ); Mallet's Case ( ... dealer is constantly moving about from one fair to another, and if a letter or telegram were to be kept circulating ... ...
-
Hi-Tech Business Systems Ltd. v. Purolator Courier Ltd., (1996) 194 A.R. 247 (PC)
...liability (Motor Transport Regulations, schedule 3, ss. 9 and 10) were applicable. Cases Noticed: Garnett et al. v. Willan and Jones (1821), 106 E.R. 1113, refd to. [para. 7]. Levison et al. v. Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co., [1978] Q.B. 69 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9]. Karsales (Harrow) Lt......
-
Bradley v Waterhouse and Briggs
...to this effect. There was one lately decided in the Court of Common Pleas ; and in this Court, there is the case of Garnet v. Wrtlan (5 B. & A. 53). There the change of the nature of the conveyance was considered, as taking the case out of the effect of the notice ; and m the still later ca......
-
Mathews v The Dublin & Drogheda Railway Company
...and DEASY, BB. MATHEWS and THE DUBLIN & DROGHEDA RAILWAY COMPANY. Bolckow v. SeymourENR 17 C. B., N. S. 107. Garnett v. WillanENR 5 B. & Ald. 53. M'Manus v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co.ENR 4 H. & N. 327. Peek v. North Staffordshire Railway 10 H. of L. Cas. 473, 566. Simons v. Th......