Holden v The Liverpool New Gas and Coke Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1846 |
| Date | 22 May 1846 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 136 E.R. 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND UPON WRITS OF ERROR FROM THAT COURT TO THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 15 L. J. C. P. 301.
COMMON BENCH REPORTS. CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURT of COMMON PLEAS, in Trinity Term and Vacation, and Michaelmas Term, 1846, and Hilary Term, 1847. By JAMES MANNING, Serjeant at Law; T. C. GRANGER, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister at Law; and JOHN SCOTT, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister at Law. Vol. III. London, 1848. [1] cases argued and determined in the court of common pleas, and upon writs of error from that court to the exchequer chamber, in trinity term, in the ninth year of the beign of victoria. The judges who usually sat in banco in this term, were, Tindal, C. J., Coltman, J., Maule, J., Erie, J. holden v. the liverpool new gas and coke company. May 22, 1846. [S. C. 15 L. J, C. P. 301.] A gas company incorporated by act of parliament, with the usual powers to take up pavements, &c., for the purpose of laying down and repairing mains, pipes, &c., had for some years supplied gas to a house belonging to the plaintiff; the only means of shutting it off being by a stop-cock within the house, the key of which was kept by the occupier. The last tenant, on quitting, gave notice to the company that he should not require any further supply ; and one of their workmen, at his request, removed a chandelier from one of the rooms, leaving the end of the pipe properly secured. The internal fittings were the property of the plaintiff. Whilst the house remained untenanted, the gas by some unexplained means escaped, and an explosion took place, by which the house was considerably damaged.-In case against the company, alleging a breach of duty on their part in not taking proper means to prevent the influx of the gas into the house, the judge having, upon the above facts, directed a nonsuit, the court declined to interfere.-Negligence on the part of the plaintiff, was held to be an admissible defence under the plea of not guilty. Case. The declaration stated that the plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing of the grievance by the said Liverpool New Gas and Coke [2] Company as thereinafter mentioned, was, and from thence hitherto had been and still was, lawfully possessed of a certain house, with the appurtenances, situate and being in the borough of Liverpool, in the county palatine of Lancaster; that, before and at the time of the committing of the said grievance, the said Liverpool New Gas and Coke Company was possessed of divers large quantities of a certain dangerous, inflammable, and explosive gas, then being under the care of the said Liverpool New Gas and Coke Company : yet the said Liverpool New Gas and Coke Company, well C, P. xiv.-i 2 HOLDEN V. THE LIVERPOOL NEW GAS COMPANY 3 C. B. 3. knowing the premises, but disregarding their duty in that behalf, and contriving and wrongfully and unjustly intending to injure and prejudice the plaintiff in the possession and enjoyment of his said house, and to injure the said house, theretofore, to wit, on the 1st of April, 1844, wrongfully and injuriously took such little and bad care of their said gas that, by reason of the carelessness, negligence, and improper conduct of the said company in that behalf, divers large quantities of the said gas of the said company wrongfully and unlawfully then passed, diffused, and spread itself towards, unto, into, and about the said house of the plaintiff, and then caught fire, and exploded therein : by means of which premises the said house of the plaintiff was then greatly damaged, shaken, burnt, and injured, and then became and was out of repair and dilapidated, and the plaintiff was thereby prevented from enjoying the same, as he otherwise might have done and ought to have done, for [3] a long time, to wit, six months then next following, and was also deprived of great gains and profits,- to wit, 1001., which he would have otherwise derived from letting the said house during the last-mentioned period, and was also forced and obliged to, and necessarily did, pay, lay out, and expend divers large sums of money, in the whole amounting to a large sum, to wit, 5001., and was also forced and obliged to, and necessarily did, contract and become liable to pay divers other sums of money, in the whole amounting to another large sum, to wit, 5001., in and about repairing the damage so done as aforesaid. Pleas-first, not guilty-secondly, that the plaintiff was not possessed of the house in the declaration mentioned, modo et form!. Issue thereon. The cause was tried before Cresswell, J., at the last summer assizes at Liverpool. The facts that appeared in evidence were as follow :-The plaintiff was the owner of a dwelling-house in Salisbury Street, Liverpool; and, whilst in his own occupation, in the year 1826, he caused it to be supplied with gas from the works of the Liverpool New Gas and Coke Company, which was incorporated by act of parliament (4 G-. 4, c. xxxix.), with extensive powers for taking up pavements, &c., for the purpose of laying down and repairing their mains and pipes (b). The mode of supplying gas to the different houses, was by an iron pipe from the main in the street, through the outer wall of the house, and thence through a meter, between which and the wall was a stop-cock, to admit or exclude the passage of the gas to the meter and thence to the burners, at the pleasure of the occupiers, in whose possession the key of the stop-cock ' was. - It appeared that the company had no [4] external means of cutting off the gas from the houses supplied by them, except by the removal of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Kelaher
...(a) Questor was not liable for any loss suffered in respect of the CMT if it acts in good faith and without default or negligence (cl 16.3, CB 1/0006G p. (b) Questor could take and act upon legal advice or the advice, statements or information of bankers, accountants, auditors, valuers and ......
-
Hickman v Cox and Wheatcroft
...E. R. 431 (with note). 1512 HICKMAN V. COX MC.B.617. [617] hickman -v. Cox and wheatckoft. May 30, 1856. [See S. C. in Exchequer Chamber, 3 C. B. 1ST. S. 523: and in House of Lords, 9 'C. B. N; S. 47; 8 H. L. C. 268; HE. B. 43 r (with note).] A. and B., who carried on "the business of iron-......
-
Doyle v Kinahan
...v. BeardENR 8 Car. & P. 373. Morrison v. The General Steam Navigation CompanyENR 8 Exch. 733. Holden v. The Liverpool Navigation CompanyENR 3 C. B. 1. Smith v. Dodson 3 M. & Gr. 59. Thorogood v. BryanENR 8 C. B. 115, see pp. 117, 130. Hawkins v. CooperENR 8 Car. & P. 473. Vennall v. GarnerE......
-
Kcma v Abc And Others
...title id="_ftn1" onclick="Javascript:void(0)" style="color=black;">[1] Paras 9-25, CB1:13-19 [2] CB2:768-770 [3] CB1:1 [4] See para 5.5(3), CB1:155 [5] See CB1: 145, 148 [6] CB4:766 [7] See para 43, pg 12, W’s Skeleton Submissions ...
-
A New Deference Standard: The Rebuttable Presumption of Validity for USPTO Trademark Likelihood-of-Confusion Determinations
...[one] may still use any mark adopted to identify the source of [her] goods and/or services.”). 27. 15 U.S.C. § 1051. 28. Id. § 1051(a)(3)(C), (b)(1). 374 IOWA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 103:367 . . . and . . . the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and . . . on services when it is used or dis......
-
Central clearing for credit default swaps. A legal analysis of the new central clearing regulations in Europe and the US
...clear its derivative contracts through a CCP” (Langen, 2011).80. Sec. 723 (a) (3) WSTAA juncto sec. 2 (h) (2) CEA; Sec. 763 (a) juncto sec. 3C (b) (1) SEA.81. These are the terms referring to CCIs in the CEA and the SEA (infra section 2).82. Sec. 723 (a) (3) WSTAA juncto sec. 2 (h) (2) (D) ......
-
An Experimental Test of the Core in a Simple N-Person Cooperative Nonsidepayment Game
...1 Outcome 2 Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Outcome 5 Outcome 6 C Euclidean ( 66, 113) ( 70, 115) ( 66, 113) ( 70, 120) ( 66, 113) ( 66, 113) ( 66, 11 3) --- CB 1 ( 90, 100) ( 90, 103) ( 63, 140) ( 90, 100) ( 95,110) ( 95, 115) ( 92, 103) _-_ CB2 --_ ( 51, 125) ( 60, 130) ( 70, 110) ( 40, 135) ( 50, 12......
-
DC Register Vol 64, No 6, February 10 2017 Pages 1277 to 1582
...December 24, 1973,87 Stat. 790, Pub. L. No. 93-198, D.C. Official Code § 1-204.22(6) and (11) (2016 Repl.), and pursuant to new section 3c(b)(1) of the Public Access to Automated External Defibrillator Act of2000, effective April 27, 2001 (D.C. Law 13-278: D.C. Official Code § 44-231 et seq......