Gee v The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1860 |
| Date | 14 November 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 87
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 30 L. J. Ex. 11; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1118, 9 W R 103, 3 L T. 328. Referred to, Wilson v. Newport Dock Company, 1866, L R. 1 Ex 185, Hobbs v. London and South Western Railway, 1875, L. R. 10 Q B 123. On point as to costs, dissented from, Schroder v. Ward, 1863, 13 C. B. (N S) 410, and not followed, Conybeare v. Farries, 1869, L R 5 Ex. 16.
[211] gee and others, Appellants, iks lancashire and yorkshire company, Respondents. Nov 14, 1860 - The plaintiffs delivered to the dants, who were carriers, ten tons of cotton to be carried from Liverpool to Oldham. In the usual course the cotton should have been received on the following day, but it did not in fact arrive till four days afterwards In consequence of the delay a new mill of the plaintiffs was stopped for want of cotton to go on with At the time of the delivery of the cotton to the defendants nothing was said as to the paiticular inconvenience likely to result from the delay in forwarding it But on the day before it was delivered to the defendants, and repeatedly on each succeeding day until it arrived at Oldham, one of the plaintiffs called to inquire about it ; and on each occasion told the manager of the goods department at the Oldham station that the mill was at a stand, solely on account of the non-delivery of the cotton. In an action against the defendants for neglect in delivering the cotton, the plaintiffs proved that during the time the mill was at a stand they had paid in wages 71 ; and that the profit which would have been made if the mill had been at work was 71 10s. The judge of the County Court told the jary, that when, as in the present case, by the neglect of a carrier, a man had no material to carry on his business, be had a right to charge as legal damage such loss as naturally and immediately arose from stopping the mill , that the plaintiffs were entitled to the money they had actually paid as wages, 71., and that the profit which the plaintiffs would ha\e made was a fair subject of calculation ; and the jury should therefore give, over and above the sum of 71., such amount as would be the actual loss and detriment the plaintiffs had suffered by the non-amval of the cotton in due course Held, that this was a misdirection, and that the plamtitfs were not entitled to the amount of wages paid and of the profits lost as legal damages, inasmuch as it assumed that the stoppage of the mill arose entirely from the non-delivery of the cotton, when in fact it arose partly from that and partly from the plain tiff's having no cotton to go on with. - Semble, that the jury might have properly given the amount of the wages and loss of profit as damages, if they had found as a fact that the stoppage of the mill was [a consequence of the non-deli very of the cotton which, either from express notice or the course of business in the distnct might have been anticipated by the parties at the time of making the contract. - Quaere, per Bramwell, B., whether if, in the course of the performance of a contract, one party gives notice to the other of any particular consequence which will result from a breach of the contract, and the latter, after that notice, persists in breaking the contract, the former may not hold him responsible in damage for the consequences if they result from the breach, though they are not such as would naturally arise, and were not in contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract. - Where, on an appeal from a County Court, a new trial is ordered on the ground of misdirection, the Court will not give costs to the appellant. [S C. 30 L. J. Ex. 11 ; 6 Jur. (N. S.) 1118 , 9 W E 103 , 3 L T. 328. Referred to, Wilson v. Newpwt Dock Company, 1866, L R. 1 Ex 185 , Hobbb v. Lwidon and South Western Railway, 1875, L. R. 10 Q B 123. On point as to costs, dissented from, Sehioder v. Ward, 1863, 13 C. B. (N S ) 410, and not followed, Conybeare v. Fames, 1869, L R 5 Ex. 16.] This was an appeal from the decision of the judge of the County Court of Lancashire holden at Oldham, 88 GEE V. THE LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE RLY. CO. 6 H. & N 212 The particulars annexed to the summons were as follows ò-The plaintiffs seek to recover damages, " For that the defendants, being common carriers, agreed with the plaintiffs for reward to carry duly upon the defendants' railway, and to deliver duly to the plaintiffs, fifteen bales of cotton . yet the defendants broke the said agreement by not carrying and delivering within a leasonable time, and neglected and refused to carry and deliver the same for seven days, whereby the plaintiffs weie injured in theii trade [212] and business as cotton spinners, and they were pi evented from working their mill and machinery dining each of the said days, and inclined expenses in compensating their workmen for loss of time, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monarch Steamship Company Ltd v Karlshamns Oljefabriker (A/B)
...turn out that there is no such thing as a rule, as to the legal measure of damages, applicable in all cases." See Gee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company (1860) 6 H. & N. 211, at p. 221. The observations of Lord Haldane to which reference has been made show the wisdom of this foreca......
-
Czarnikow Ltd v Koufos (Heron II)
...scale are cases where the defendant is not a vendor of the goods, but a carrier, see, for instance, Hadley v. Baxendale and Gee v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway. In such cases the courts have been slow to allow loss of profit as an item of damage. This was not, it would seem, because a dif......
-
Liesbosch Dredger (Owners of) v Owners of SS Edison (The Liesbosch)
...13 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 558 116 L. T. Rep. 34 (1917) A. C. 38 Gee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 3 L. T. Rep. 328 6 H. & N. 211 Hobbs v. London and South-Western Railway Company 1875. 32 L. T. Rep. 252 L. Rep. 10 Q. B. 111 The ColumbusENR 1849, 3 W. Rob. 158 The City of RomeDI......
-
Athol v The Midland Great Western of Ireland Railway Company
...FittUNK 14 Ir. C. L. R. 43. Smead v. FoordENRUNK 1 E. & E. 602; 28 L. J. Q. B. 178. Gee v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENRUNK 6 H. & N. 211; 30 L. J. Ex. 11. Randall v. RaperENRUNK E. B. & E. 84; 27 L. J. Q. B. 266. Waters v. TowersENRUNK 8 Ex. 401; 22 L. J. Ex. 186. Corry v. Th......