Hamlin v the Great Northern Railway Company
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 19 November 1856 |
Date | 19 November 1856 |
Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1261
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 26 L J Ex 20 2 Jur (N S) 1122, 5 W R 76 Discussed, Hobbs v. London and South Western Railway, 1875, L R 10 Q. B 116, Le Blanche v London and North Western Railway, 1876, 1 C. P. D 286
[408] hamlin i- the (treat northern railway company Nov 19, 1856 -A tradesman took a ticket to go by uulway from London to Hull On arriving at Grimsby he found no ti.un ready to take him to Hull the same night, as it should ha\e been according to the published time-bill He slept at Giimsby, and in the morning paid Is 4d fare to Hull In consequence of the delay, he failed to keep appointments with his customers, and was detained for many days-Held, that though he would have been entitled to have performed the contract at the expense of the Railway Company, yet, not having clone so, that he was not entitled to recover am thing moie than nominal damages in addition to the Is 4d , and perhaps the cost of his bed &c. at Grimsby [S C. 26 L J Ex 20, 2 Jur (N S) 1122 , 5 VV R 76 Discussed, Hobb* v. London ami South U'e^ttm Railway, 1875, L R 10 Q. B 116, Le Blanch? v London and North Wf^lfin, Railway, 1876, I C. P. I) 286] The declaration stated that the defendants were the owners of a railway and of carnages for the conveyance of passengeis, that the plaintiff was received by the defendants as a passenget to be earned fiom London to Hull by a train which the defendants advertised and represented to the plaintiff, by a published train bill, to be a tram arriving at Hull at nine houis and tlmty minutes in the afternoon, and that by reason of the negligence and default of the defendants the train did not arrive at Hull at that time or within a reasonable time afterwards, whereby the plaintiff was unable to cany on his necessary affairs and business as a tailor, and was deprived of the profits which otherwise would have accrued to him by reason of his business, and was put to great trouble, mconvenreiice, and expense by reason of the delay. The defendants pleaded several pleas upon which issues were joined At the trial before Martin, B, at the Middlesex sittings in the present term, it appeared that the plaintiff was a master tailor going to Yorkshire to see his customers, having previously made arrangements to meet them at particular times and places On the 25th of October, 1855, he took a ticket for Hull by the two o'clock train from King's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd
... ... evenings a week … No doubt you will be in for a great time, when you book this house-party holiday… Mr. Weibel, ... And in Hobbs v. London & South Western Railway (1875) Law Reports 10 Queen's Bench, at page 122, Mr ... of carriage and the undertaking of the railway company was entirely different from that of the defendants in the ... ...
-
Carey v Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd
... ... EDGINGTON V FITZMAURICE 1885 29 CHD 459 NORTHERN BANK FINANCE V CHARLTON 1979 IR 149 ADDIS V ... 1928 IR 171 BREEN V COOPER IR 3 CL 621 HAMLIN V GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY 1 H&N 8 MALIK V BANK OF ... Drury entered the arrangement on behalf of the company and offered the plaintiff employment in good faith and he ... ...
- Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon
-
Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan Yew
... ... ) of the Rules of the Supreme Court directing that a company, BHL, be added as a party to the action against the major ... It was mortgaged to Great Pacific Finance Limited, which registered its mortgage on ... In the earlier case Hamlin v Great Northern Rly Co (1856) 1 H & N 408 at 411 Pollock ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...Travel Limited [1998] CLY 1428, Central London Cty Ct 7.90 Hamlin v Great Northern Railway (1856) 1 H&N 408, 26 LJ Ex 20, 28 LTOS 104, 156 ER 1261 7.77 Harbord v Thomas Cook Airlines (2006) LTL (Oxford Cty Ct) 10.165 Harding v Wealands [2006] UKHL 32, [2007] 2 AC 1, [2007] 3 WLR 83, [2006] ......