McManus v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 1859 |
| Date | 16 February 1859 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 285
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L J. Ex. 201; 4 Jur (N. S.) 144; 6 W. R. 330: reversed 1859, 4 H. & N. 327.
[693] m'manus t. the lancashire and yorkshire railway company. Jan. 26, 1858.-The plaintiff biought three horses to the cattle station of the defendants' railway at Liverpool to be forwarded by a cattle truck to York The defendants' servant provided a, tiuck for the purpose, which, to all external appearance, and so far as the servant knew, was sufficient for the purpose. The plaintiff signed a ticket which contained the following memorandum.- "This ticket is issued subject to the owner's undertaking all risks of conveyance, loading and unloading whatsoever , as the Company will not be responsible for any injury or damage (howsoever caused) occurring to live stock of any description travelling upon the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, or in their vehicles " The truck proved (as the fact was) to be insufficient for the carriage of the horses ; and a (a) Parry, Serjt, then mentioned that there was another action between the same parties, in which the plaintiff sought to recover for services by him as " assessor of fire losses "; but the Court were clearly of opinion that the contract was open to the same objection. 286 m'mantjs v. tbe lancashire railway company 2H&N hole was made in the bottom of it on the journey, by which the horses were injured. Twopence a mile for hire was charged, being the regular charge for conveyance in open trucks, under tickets in the above form, from the cattle station. Fourpence per mile was the charge for horses forwarded from the passenger station in "horse-boxes," under similar tickets.-Held . First, that the condition was reasonable : secondly, that it protected the defendants from liability in respect of the defect in the truck. [S. C. 27 L J. Ex. 201; 4 Jur (N. S.) 144; 6 W. R. 330 : reversed 1859, 4 H. & N. 327.] The declaration (a) alleged a breach of promise by the defendants, in not providing trucks reasonably fit and proper for the carriage of the plaintiffs horses, from Liverpool to York, on the defendant's railway. whereby the horses were injured. Pleas (inter alia)-Secondly: that the trucks were reasonably fit and proper for the carriage of the horses Thirdly ò that the promise was made upon and subject to the terms that the plaintiff should undertake all risks whatever of the carriage and conveyance by the defendants of the hotses, and that the defendants would not be responsible for any injury or damage, howsoever caused, occurring to the horses whilst being earned and conveyed upon the railway. And that the injury occurred to the horses whilst being earned and conveyed upon the i ail way. Replications joining and taking issue on the pleas. The cause came on for trial before Watson, B., at the last Liverpool Assizes, when the following facts were agreed upon by the counsel on both sides -The pluin-[694]-tiff, on the 16th of December 1856, brought three hoises to the cattle station of the defendants' railway at Liverpool, to be forwarded by a cattle tiuck to Yoik. The defendants' servant at the station provided a truck for the purpose of the horses being loaded therein. The truck, to external appearance and so far as the servant knew, was sufficient for the purpose. The plaintiff paid at the rate of 2d. a mile foi the forwarding of the horses to York by the truck, and then signed a ticket, a copy of which is below - 171 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway District. No. 92. live stock department. No. of Waggon Quantity. Description Ratn Amount Pald ' Pu,lUr. on L)i No Docks Station. Ibth Dec 1856 2931 3 Horse t 2d £-2 10 0 £-2 10 0 i Name - H MuMattus Per mile Address - York 1 Man Free Fioin No Dks. to Yoik. J C J Clerk. N.B.-This Ticket is issued subject to the owner's undertaking all risk of conveyance, loading and unloading, whatsoever, as the Company will not be responsible for any injury or damage (howsoever caused) occurring to live stock of any description, travelling upon the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, or in their vehicles htv/t kxtvj | Owner, or on the owner's behalf, . Me XManus, { ' , ,, i . ^ agrees to the above terms. The truck proved, as the fact was, to be insufficient for the safe carnage of the horses, and a hole was made in the bottom of the truck in the journey by which the horaes were injured to the extent of 251 The charge for three horses laden at the (a) It was admitted by the plaintiff's counsel that the declaration, as fitimed, could not be supported. 2H4N695. M'MANUS V. THE LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY 287 cattle station is 2d a mile per horse Horses so laden are always forwarded in open trucks of [695} the construction of that used in the present case, under tickets in this form; and trucks are forwarded from the cattle station by a cattle or luggage train At the passengers' station horses are taken at the rate of 4d a horse per mile Horses laden at this station are fot warded in horse-boxes by the tiams departing fioni the passenger station, usually passenger trains (a) Any amendment in the pleadings, proper to raise the real question, to be made. The Court to have power to draw any inferences of fact. Under the direction of the learned Judge, a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, leave being reserved to the defendants to move to enter the verdict for them. Hugh Hill, in last Michaelmas Term, obtained a rule nisi accordingly on the ground that, upon the facts admitted at the trial, the defendants were not responsible for the injury and damage of which the plaintiff complained. Blackburn and Brett shewed cause (Jan 15). The facts raise two points . fiist, whether the liability of the defendants is limited by the notice at the foot of the ticket: and, if so, secondly, whether the condition is so unreasonable as to be \ oid under the \1 & 18 Viet. c. 31, s 7. First, the defendants being common cdirieis were bound to provide vehicles reasonably fit and secure for the carriage of the horses which they undertook to convey The case is analogous to that of a shipownei, who, notwithstanding the exception in a charter-party as to perils of the seas, is bound to provide a seaworthy vessel [Pollock, C B. It is a new thing to carry animals by land.] A cairiei is bound to cany according to his public profession He may, if he thinks fit, [696] cairy goods only, 01 he may carry any particular species of goods Only , but if he holds himself out to the public as also a earner of animals, he cannot restrict his liability by saying that he will not be responsible for their conveyance. [Martin, B Is the owner of a general ship bound to carry cattle1?] There is no authority on the subject; but if he undertakes to carry them, an exception in the bill of lading as to nsks of the voyage, will not release him fiom his obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel. So, here, though the defendants say that they will not be responsible for risks of conveyance, they are nevertheless bound to provide secure vehicles. In Story on Bailments, sect 562, it is said that it is "a pait of the implied contract of every carrier to employ a vehicle suitable for the transportation ; and if by water, to employ a vessel reasonably stout, strong, and well equipped for the voyage." [Martin, B , refeired to Sharp v. Qiey (9 Bing 457) ] The providing an insufficient vehicle is not a risk of conveyance, but a bieach of contract preliminary to the conveyance The Company, indeed, say that they will not be responsible for any injury or damage, " howsoevei caused ", but if the latter words be construed in their l;ige?t sense, they would include the case of larceny. According to the contention on the part of the defendants, they would not be liable even if they furnished a truck knowing that it was unsafe In Shaw v. The YoiL and Noith Midland Railway Company (13 Q B. 347), the declaration alleged that the defendants received the plaintiff's horse to be "safely and securely earned by them," and the Court held that that allegation was disproved by the terms of the ticket the decision, therefore, proceeded on the ground of variance But Loid Denman, C. J , in delivering judgment of the Court, said,-" It may be that, notwithstanding the terms of the contract, the plaintiff might have alleged that [697] it was the duty of the defendants to have furnished proper and sufficient carriages, and that the loss happened from a breach of that duty." Carr v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (7 Exch. 707) only decided, that under a contract of this kind, the owner takes upon himself all risk of conveyance, and that the railway Company are merely bound to find carriages and propelling power. In Chippendale v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company (21 L. J. Q. B. 22), the judgment of Erie J., proceeded on the express ground that the vehicle was safe and proper for the journey. In Austin v The Majichebtet, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company (10 C. B. 454), the terms of the notice were sufficiently large to include a loss arising from gross negligence. Secondly, the condition is unreasonable and void by the 17 & 18 Viet. c. 31, s. 7. In construing the statute, regard should be bad to the common law, the mischief and (a) The case then set out the form of the ticket issued by the Company under such circumstances, and which contained the same condition as the ticket above mentioned. 288 m'manits v, the lancashire railway company 2H&N 698 the remedy provided ò Heydon's case (3 Rep. 7 b ) Before that statute, railway Companies refused to carry goods or animals, except upon terms which relieved them irom all liability, and if they gave notice of those terms no one had power to vary them ò Walker v. The York and North Midland Railway Company (2 E & B 750.) The legislature interposed, and said that conditions limiting the liability of railway Companies shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Haydon Harrison v The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company
...the window of which was not properly tecured; and it has been decided in M'Manus v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company (4 H. & N. 327), on appeal, that the providing an improper carriage for the conveyance of live stock is negligence in a railway Company. Alao, they did not fasten......
-
Steel v State Line Steamship Company
...Cas. 284; 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 31; 34 L. T. Rep. N. S. 36; 36 L. T. Rep. N. S. 382; Macmanus v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 4 H. & N. 327; Carry. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 7 Ex. 707; Danielh v. Harris, 2 Asp. Me?. Law Cas. 413; L. Rep. 10C. P. 1; 31 L. T. Rep. N......
-
Cohen v South Eastern Railway Company
...v. The Great Western Railway CompanyENRUNK 18 C. B. 805 26 L. T. 55, C. P. McManus v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire, Railway CompanyENRUNK 4 H. & N. 327 28 L. J. 353, Ex. Carrier Railway company Carriers by rail and steam vessel Stewart v. The London and North-Western Railway Company (19 L. ......
-
Aldridge v The Great Western Railway Company
...that the Lancaster and Preston Railway Company were liable for its loss. In M'Manux v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, 4 Hurlst, & N. 327, 349, Williams, J., says, " The company may make special contracts with their customers, provided they re just and reasonable, and signed ;......