Hole v The Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 January 1861 |
| Date | 15 January 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 201
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 30 L. J. Ex. 81; 9 W R. 274; 3 L. T. 750. Distinguished, Butler v. Hunter, 1862, 7 H. & N. 833; Gray v Pullen, 1864, 5 B. & S. 978. Referred to, Dalton, v. Angus, 1881, 6 A. C. 829, Hardaker v. Idle District Council, [1896] 1 Q. B. 340, Britannic Merthyr Coal Company v. David, [1910] A. C 74. Considered, Maxwell v. British Thomson Houston Company, 1902, 18 T L. R. 278.
hole v. the sittingbourne and sheerness eailway company. Jan. 14, 15, 1861.-The defendants, d railway Company, were authorized by their act of parliament to construct a railway bridge across a navigable river. The Act provided that it should not be lawful to detain any vessel navigating the river for a longer time than sufficient to enable any carriages, animals or passengers, ready to traverse, to cross the bridge and for opening it to admit such vessel. The defendants employed a contractor to construct the bridge in conformity with the provisions of the act of parliament, but before the works were completed the bridge, from some defect in its construction, could not be opened, and the plaintiff's vessel was prevented from navigating the river. Held, that the defendants were liable for the damage thereby caused to the plaintiff. [ C. 30 L. J. Ex. 81 9 W E. 274; 3 L. T. 750. Distinguished, Butler v. Hunter, 1862, 7 H. & N. 833; Gtay v Pullen, 1864, 5 B. & S. 978. Referred to, Dalton, v. Angus, 1881, 6 A. C. 829, Haidakerv. Idle Distnct Council, [1896] 1 Q. B. 340, Britannic Merthyr Coal Company v. David, [1910] A. C 74. Considered, Maxwell v. British Thomson Houston Company, 1902, 18 T L. R. 278.] The first count of the declaration stated that, before and at the time of the committing by the defendants of the several grievances &c., there was and yet is a certain arm of the sea called the Swale, situate in the county of Kent, [489] and which said arm of the sea was and is a public navigable channel and passage for all the liege subjects of our lady the Queen to pass and repass with their ships and vessels at their free will and pleasure. that before the times aforesaid, and after the passing and coming into force of an act of parliament made in a session of parliament holden in the 19th and 20th years of her present Majesty, intituled &c (19 & 20 Viet, c Ixxv.), the defendants, under and by virtue of the provisions of the Act, constructed and bailt a swing or opening bridge over and across the said public navigable channel or passage of the Swale, and which said bridge, at the time aforesaid, was over and across the said channel or passage, and under the management and direction and control of the defendants, and without the opening of which said bridge by the defendants, at the times aforesaid, to admit ships or vessels with their cargoes navigating the said channel and passage to pass the same bridge, any such ship or vessel with its cargo so navigating the said channel or passage of the Swale at the times aforesaid could not pass through the same or through the said bridge: that, before and at the time of the committing by the defendants of the grievances &c., a ship or vessel called the " Jason," laden with a cargo of goods and merchandize of the plaintiff under a charter-party with the owners of such ship or vessel, was being navigated with the said cargo, for the plaintiff, through and along the said channel or passage of the Swale, and the plaintiff and the master of the said ship at the time last aforesaid were respectively desirous that the said ship or vessel called the " Jason " with the plaintiff's said cargo therein should pass through the said bridge, whereof the defendants always had notice ; and that all things were done and performed, and all requests made, and all notices given, and all things and events happened and occurred, and all things existed, and all times [490] elapsed, to entitle the plaintiff to have the said bridge opened by the defendants, to enable the said ship or vessel &c. to pass through the said bridge, without being detained for any longer space of time than as in the said Act in that behalf mentioned : Yet the defendants, not regarding their duty in that behalf, wilfully, wrongfully and injuriously, and contrary to the said Act, neglected and refused to open the said bridge on the occasion on which the plaintiff and the master of the said ship were respectively so desirous that the said ship or vessel &e should pass through the said bridge, for a much longer space of time than was sufficient to enable any trains or carriages, animals or passengers, ready to traverse the i ail way or carriage road over the said bridge, to cross the said bridge, and for opening the said bridge to admit the said ship or vessel &c. to pass the same, and for moie than ten minutes on Ex. Div, xiv.-7* 202 HOLE V. SITTINGBOTJRNE AND SHEERNESS RLY. CO. 6 H & N. 491 such occasion aforesaid, and thereby the defendants on the occ.it.ton aforesaid wilfully) wrongfully and unlawfully, and contrary to the said statute, detained the said ship or vessel called the "Jason," so navigating the said channel of the Swale with the said cargo therein, and hindered and prevented the said ship or vessel with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coe against Wise, Clerk to the Middle Level Drainage Commissioners
...The St. Helen's Canal and Railway Company (2 H. & N. 840), Buck v. Williams (3 H. & N. 308), Hole v. The Sittingbourne Railway Company (6 H. & N. 488), The Mersey Docks Board v. Penhallow (7 H. & N. 329), Young v. Dans (7 H. & N. 760}, Bagnall v. The London and North Western Railway Company......
- Kondis v State Transport Authority
-
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery
...from the responsibility attaching on him of seeing that duty performed’ were, or were analogous to, highway cases: Hole v Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway Company197 (construction of a bridge obstructing navigable waters) and Tarry v Ashton198 (lamp projecting over a footpath not properl......
-
Lewis et al. v. British Columbia, (1997) 220 N.R. 81 (SCC)
...97; 8 C.L.R. 1; 10 D.L.R.(4th) 641, refd to. [para. 14]. Hole v. Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway Co. (1861), 6 H. & N. 488; 158 E.R. 201, refd to. [para. Kitchener (City) v. Robe and Clothing Co., [1925] S.C.R. 106, refd to. [para. 17]. Tucker v. Asleson et al., [1991] B.C.J. No. 95......
-
The site
...owner where the instructed work is regarded 513 Hole v Sittingbourne and Sheerness Railway Co (1861) 6 H & n 488 at 498, per Pollock cB [158 er 201 at 205]. in contrast, if the work the contractor was instructed to perform was not inherently tortious, and the contractor carried out that wor......