London and North Western Railway Company v Glyn

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date03 February 1859
Date03 February 1859
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 120 E.R. 1054

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

The London and North Western Railway Company against Glyn

S. C. 28 L. J. Q. B. 188; 5 Jur. N. S. 1004. Applied, North British Insurance Company v. Moffatt, 1871, L. R. 7 C. P. 31. Referred to, Martineau v. Kitching, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 457; Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Insurance Company, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 615.

[652] the london and north western railway company against glyn. -( fb. ~-ici.Thursday, February 3d, 1859. Plaintiff's, common carriers, insured goods against ' fire, in an insurance Company of which defendant was treasurer. By a condition indorsed on the policy " goods held in trust, or on commission," were " to be insured as such, otherwise the policy " would " not extend to cover such property." By the policy, 15,0001. was declared to be insured "on goods their" (plaintiffs') " own and in trust as carriers" in a certain warehouse; and it was stipulated that the funds of the insurance Company were to be "liable to pay, reinstate, or make good " " to the " " assured " " all damage and loss which the " " assured " should " suffer by fire, on the property " therein " particularized." Another of the conditions indorsed ran thus : " In every case of loss duly proved, the Company will either reinstate the property, or the assured shall receive satisfaction to the amount thereof, without discount or deduction." Held, in an action on the policy, that, to the named amount, the whole value of goods in the warehouse, in (a) Hill J. had left the Court during the argument. 1BL. &EI.U3. RAILWAY COMPANY V. GLYN 1055 plaintiffs' possession as carriers, was insured by it, and not merely plaintiffs' interest as carriers in such goods. That plaintiffs were entitled to recover the whole value of such goods destroyed by fire in the warehouse; although, aa the value of such goods exceeded 101., and the owners had not declared such value to plaintiffs, plaintiffs were not liable to the owners for such lass by reason of the Carriers Act, stat. 11 G, 4 & 1 W. 4, c. 68, s. 1.-Held further, that plaintiffs would be trustees for the owners of the goods of the amount thus recovered, less plaintiffs' charges as carriers in respect of the goods. [S. C. 28 L. J. Q. B. 188 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1004. Applied, North British Insurance Company v. Moffatt, 1871, L. E. 7 C. P. 31. Eeferred to, Martineau v. Kikhing, 1872, L. R. 7 Q. B. 457; Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Insurance Company, 1873, L. E. 8 C. P. 615.] Action by plaintiffs against defendant, as treasurer of The Globe Insurance Company. The declaration set out at length a policy of insurance against loss and damage by fire, effected with the said insurance Company, dated llth December, 1854, by which the sum of 15,0001. was insured on goods, plaintiffs' own and in trust as carriers, in a certain warehouse, in the policy named. The declaration then averred that certain goods of plaintiffs, in trust as carriers, in the said warehouse, had been burnt and destroyed by fire, whereby plaintiffs sustained a loss on the said goods to the amount of 15,0001., and that the said insurance Company had not paid or made good the said loss. 2nd plea. That plaintiffs did not, by reason of the said burning and destroying by fire, suffer any damage or loss upon the said goods. Issue thereon. At the trial, before Willes J., at the Surrey Summer Assizes, 1858, a verdict was entered for the plaintiffs [653] for the full amount claimed, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a special case, which was substantially as follows. By the policy of insurance, upon which this action was brought (a copy of which formed part of the ease), an insurance was, on llth December, 1854, effected by plaintiffs with The Globe Insurance Company for the sum of 35,0001., 15,0001. of which was declared to be " on goods their " (plaintiffs1) " own and iti trust as carriers," in a warehouse (A.) belonging to plaintiffs, situate at the Camden Town Station of The London and North Western Eailway. The second condition indorsed on the policy was as follows. " Goods held in trust, or in commission, are to be insured as such, otherwise the policy will not extend to cover such property." It was declared in and by the policy that, during the continuance of the policy, " the capital stock or fund of the " insurance " Company shall be subject and liable to pay, reinstate, or make good, at their option, to the " " assured " " all damage and loss which the " " assured " " shall suffer by fire on the property herein particularized, not exceeding on each item the sum hereinbefore declared to be insured thereon." And the 12th condition, indorsed was as follows. " In every case of loss, duly proved, the Company will either reinstate the property, or the assured shall receive satisfaction to the amount thereof, without discount or deduction." The policy continued in force up to and on 9th of June, 1857, when the warehouse (A.), and nearly all the goods then contained in it, were consumed and [654] wholly destroyed by an accidental fire. All claims upon the policy have been settled and adjusted, except those in respect of the 15,0001. insured on goods, their own and in trust ss carriers, in warehouse (A.) as above mentioned. At the tim& of the happening of the fire, the warehouse contained a large quantity of goods, which, for the purpose of this case, are to be taken to be goods of plaintiff's, in trust as carriers, within the meaning of the policy. These goods were wholly burnt and destroyed by the fire. Plaintiffs seek to recover in this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Re King, decd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 4 February 1963
    ...the analogous cases of Waters v. Monarch Fire and Life Insurance Co, Ltd., 5 E.& B., 870, and London & North Western Railway v. Glynn, 1 E. & E., 652, to this case. Those cases establish that where a warehouseman (without the consent or even knowledge, of the owners) insures the whole valu......
  • Ramco (UK) Ltd and Others v International Insurance Company of Hannover Ltd and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 27 May 2004
    ...that the cover was restricted to covering damage to goods for which the bailee was liable or "responsible" in that sense. In London and North Western Railway Co v Glyn, (1859) 1 E&E 652 the court considered a policy taken out by common carriers which covered "goods their own and in trust as......
  • Tomlinson (A.) (Hauliers) Ltd v Hepburn
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 27 January 1966
    ...by the authorities relied upon by the Plaintiffs namely Waters v. Monarch Life Insurance Company 5 E. & B. page 870 and London and North Eastern Railway Company v. Glyn 1 E. & E. page 652. The authority of these two cases was finally, I think, recognised by the Defendant who could hardly do......
  • PW & Company v Milton Gate Investments Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 8 August 2003
    ... ... DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC2A 2LL ... In London and Northwestern Railway Co. -v- West (1867) LR 2 CB 553 , that point did arise ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT