McCance v The London and North Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1861 |
| Date | 19 November 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 559
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 31 L J. Ex. 65, 7 Jur (N S) 1304, 10 W R 154; 5 L T 587 affirmed 1864, 3 H. & C 343
[477] M'CANCE r. the london and north western railway company. Nov. 19, 1861 -In an action against a railway Company, the first count of the declaration alleged that the plaintiff employed the defendants to provide trucks for the carriage of the plaintiffs horses, for hire to be paid by the plaintiff, in consideration whereof the defendants promised the plaintiff that the trucks should be reasonably fit and proper for the carnage of such horses Breach: that the defendants did not provide fit and proper trucks, whereby the plaintiff's horses were injured. Second count that the defendants having received certain horses of the plaintiff to be carried by railway, in consequence of the defective state of the truck and the negligence and want of care of the defendants, the plaintiff's horses were injured. Plea: payment of 251. into Court Replica- 560 m'cance r. london and north western rly. co. i h & n 478 tion damages ultra At the trial, it appeared that when the plaintiff delivered the horses to the defendants, he signed at their request a declaration that the value of the horses did not exceed 101. per hoise, and that, in consideiation of the rate charged for their conveyance, he thereby agieed that the same were to he carried entirely at the owner's nsk In the couise of the journey the hoises were injured in consequence of the defective state of the truck in which they were carried. The horses were worth more than 101 each, and if taken at their real value the damage sustained by the plaintiff was f 51 , but if valued at 101 each the 251. paid into Couit covered the plaintiff's claim A veidict having been entered for the plaintiff for 401. on motion to enter the verdict for the defendants, the Court being at liberty to draw inferences of fact Held, that the plaintiff having made a wilfully false statement as to the value of the hoises for the purpose of inducing, and having thereby induced, the defendants to enter into the contract, was not at liberty to shew their real value, in older to obtain compensation above the amount paid into Court-Semble, that the deel.iration of the value of the horses formed no part of the contract, and th.it even if it were it did not render the contract a conditional contract-Also, that the stipulation that the horses should be carried entirely at the owner's risk was not unreasonable and void within the meaning of the 17 & l!S Viet, c 31 [S C. 31 L J. Ex. 65, 7 Jur (N 8) 1304, 10 W K 154; 5 L T 587 affirmed 1864, 3 II. & C 343 ] The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendants, being the propraetors of a certain railway, and of certain trucks and carnages to carry horses on the said railway for hire, the plaintiff employed the defendants to provide, and the defendants did provide, for the plaintiff certain trucks and carnages to be used on the said railway for the carriage of certain horses of the plaintiff from Edge Hill, near Liverpool, to Wolverhampton, by the defendants for hire to be paid by the plaintiff And the defendants, in consideration of the premises, promised the plaintiff that such trucks and carriages should be reasonably tit and proper for the carriage of such horses; and further, in consideration of the said premises, promised the plaintiff that the said horses should be carried from Edge Hill, near Liverpool, to Wolverhampton aforesaid within a reasonable time And although all things happened and times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to the performance of the said agreement and to maintain the suit, yet the defendants [478] broke then said piomise in this, that at the time of the providing of the said trucks and carnages in which the said horses were, under the said contract, conveyed upon the said railway part of the way from Edge Hill aforesaid on the said journey, the said trucks and carnages were not leason-ably fit or proper for the carriage of the said horses, or any of them , and that the defendants further made default in this, that they did not, within a reasonable time in that behalf, carry or cause to be carried the said horses or any of them from Edge Hill, near Liverpool, to Wolverhampton as aforesaid; and that by reason of the premises the said horses of the plaintiff were greatly injured and deteriorated in value, and divers of them were killed, and the plaintiff lost and was delayed a long and unreasonable time in his sale of and market for divers others of the same, and was put to great loss and expense in and about the keep, care and doctoring of the said horses, and lost large sums which he would otheiwise have made thereby Second count. that the defendants, being the proprietor's of the said railway, as in the last count mentioned, and of trucks and carriages for the conveyance of passengers, horses, cattle and merchandize, as carriers on the said railway, the plaintiff' delivered to the defendants, and the defendants received, certain horses of the plaintiff to be within a reasonable time in that behalf carried by the defendants on the said railway from Edge Hill, near Liverpool, aforesaid, to Wolverhampton aforesaid, for hire paid for the same} and that after the said delivery, and while the said horses were on the said journey, and in a certain truck of the defendants on the said railway for the purposes of such carriage, in consequence of the defective state and unfitness of the said truck and of the improper conduct and negligence and want of care of the defendants, the said horses were greatly injured and deteriorated in value and divers of them were killed, arid by reason of such negli-[479]-gence of the defendants the carriage of the plaintiff's said horses was delayed foi a great and unreasonable space th.&n. 481. m'cance v. london and north western rly. co. 561 of time, and that by reason of the premises the plaintiff sustained great loss and damage, as in the first count. Plea. Payment into Court of 2.")1. Replication. Damages ultra Issue thereon. At the trial, before Overend, Q. C., sitting as Commissioner at the last Liverpool Summer Assizes, admissions were made as follows ò-On Monday, the 8th of July, 1H61, the plaintiff delivered three horses, his property, at the defendants' railway station at Edge Hill, to be carried to Wolverhampton, with four other horses belonging to one Francis Keating, who accompanied the plaintiff; the whole to be carried m one truck, which they filled, for 21 16s. 6d., and 3s for use of the cover, which amounts were paid After the horses had been placed in a truck provided by defen-d.usts' servants, Keating went into defendants' office and paid the money, and thereupon received a ticket,(a) [481] and he put his mark, by way of signature, at the (a) This ticket, so far as material to the present question, was in the following printed form, the words in italics and the figures being filled up in wilting .- London and North Western Railway Cattle Department N'o. of Van- No nf 13 fret Wag-nil-, Quantity Description Rate . . LH-clared ! n, , , ä , Amount , ä,,, Total Paid V tllllr1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregory v The West Midland Railway Company
...is no authority that because a condition is too large it is altogether void. In McCance v. The London and Noith Western Railway Company (7 H. & N 477, 486) Pollock, C. B., said that "the act only makes void so much of a condition as is unreasonable." Therefore, even if Ex. Div. xv.-13* 394 ......
-
Gallagher v Great Western Railway Company
...B. 3. Robinson v. London and South Western Railway CompanyENR 19 C. B. N. S. 57. M'Cance v. London and North-Western Railway CompanyENR 7 H. & N. 477. Peek v. The North Staffordshire CompanyENR 10 H. L. C. 578. Carrier of goods Condition Reasonable alternative THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. MONA......
-
Nevin and Farrell v The Great Southern and Western Railway Company
...Co.UNK 41 L. T. (N. S) 436. Great Western Railway Co. v. Glenister 22 W. R. 72. M'Cance v. London and North-Western Railway Co.ENR 7 H. & N. 477. Sheridan v. Midland Great Western Railway (Ireland) Co.UNK 24 L. R. Ir 146, 169. The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lancashire Railway Co. v. BrownEL......
-
Thomas Lloyd The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company v
...Counties Railway CompanyENR 8 C. B., N. S., 709. M'Cance v. The London and North-Western Railway CompanyENR 7 Jur., N. S., 1304; S. C., 7 H. & N., 477. Bennet v. Filkins 1 Saund. Rep., by Wms., 23, note 5. The Times Fire Insurance Company v. Hawke 28 L. J., N. S., Exch., 317. M'Manus v. The......