Lewis v The Great Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1860 |
| Date | 05 June 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 1427
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 29 L. J. Ex. 425.
[867] lewis v. the great western railway company. June 5, 1860.-The plaintiff delivered to a railway Company eighteen packages to be carried on their line. He filled up and signed a receiving note, describing the goods as " furniture." On the paper, under the head " Conditions," were these words ò " No claim for deficiency, damage or detention will be allowed, unless made within three days after the delivery of the goods; nor for loss, unless made within seven days of the time they should have been delivered ; and that the Company will not be answerable for the loss or detention of any goods which may be untruly or incorrectly described in the receiving note." The plaintiff said, " he was told to sign the paper, and did so. He might have seen the word ' Conditions,' but he did not read them, and did not know, and was not told what they were." One of the packages consisted of a sack of clothes, which was not delivered, but no claim was made until more than seven days from the time when the same should have been delivered.-Held . First, that there was nothing to rebut the presumption arising from the signature of the paper by the defendant that he understood that the contract was subject to the conditions.-Secondly, that the conditions were just and reasonable within the meaning of the 17 & 18 Viet. c. 31, s. 7 ; and, therefore, that the Company had a defence to an action on the ground that the claim was not made within seven days, and that the bag of clothes was mis-deseribed.-Quaere, whether, under the 17 & 18 Viet, c 31, s. 7, the decision of a Judge at Nisi Prius, as to the reasonableness of the conditions can be reviewed by the Court above, where leave for that purpose is not reserved. Per Pollock, C B., that it can be so reviewed. [S. C. 29 L. J. Ex. 425.] Declaration. That the plaintiffs caused to be delivered to the defendants eighteen packages, and amongst others a bag of clothes, containing, &c , to be carried from Shiffnall to Wrexham, and there to be delivered by the defendants to the plaintiffs, &c Breach : That by the neglect of the defendants the bag of clothes was lost. Pleas (inter alia). Fifth ò That the defendants received the goods upon special terms, and, amongst others, that they would not be answerable for any loss or detention af or damage to any package, arising from its being insufficiently or improperly packed, marked, directed, or described, and that no claim for deficiency, damage, or detention would be allowed unless made within three days after the delivery of the goods, nor for the loss unless made within seven days of the time they should have been delivered , and that the defendants would not be answerable for the loss or detention of any goods which might be untruly or incarrectly declared or described in the 1428 LEWIS V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY 5 H & N. 868. declaration or receiving note furnished to the Company. That the alleged neglect and default consisted in the loas, [868] through an unintentional and accidental misdelivery by the defendants of the said bag of clothes, and that no claim in respect of such loss waa naade within seven days of the time when the said bag should have been delivered, wherefore the defendants are absolved from liability; arid that the neglect and default were not wilful.(a) Sixth plea. That the defendants received the goods at Shifinall, on the terms in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company
...Wright, JJ. (1) 2 App. Cas. 792. (2) 8 App. Cas. 703. (3) 3 Q. B. D. 195. (4) 10 H. L. Cas. 473. (5) 3 H. & C. 337. (6) 5 Ex. D. 190. (7) 5 H. & N. 867. (1) 26 L. J., C. P. 25, at p. 31; 18 C. B. 805. (2) 1 B. & S. at p. 146. (3) 10 L. R. Ir. at p. 106. (4) 5 H. & N. 867. (5) 15 Ir. C. L. R......
- Commissioner for Railways (Nsw) v Quinn
-
Sheridan v The Midland Great Western Railway (Ireland) Company
...CaseUNK 6 L. R. Ir. 90. M'Nally's CaseUNK 8 L. R. Ir. 81. Beal's CaseENR 3 H. & C. 337. Brown's CaseELR 8 App. Cas. 703. Lewis' CaseENR 5 H. & N. 867. Dickson's CaseELR 18 Q. B. Div. 176. Simons' CaseENR 18 C. B. 805. Peek's Case 10 H. L. Cas. At p. 576. Harrison's CaseENR 2 B. & S. 170. Di......
-
Thomas Lloyd The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company v
...Company 6 Jur., N. S., 954; S. C., 2 B. & Sm. 122. Phillips v. EdwardsENR 3 H. & N. 813. Lewis v. The Great Western Railway CompanyENR 5 H. & N. 867. Phillips v. ClarkENR 2 C. B., N. S., 156. Lyon v. MellsENR 5 East, 428. White v. The Great Western Railway CompanyENR 2 C. B., N. S., 7. Simo......