Mears v The London and South Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 1862 |
| Date | 23 February 1862 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 142 E.R. 1029
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 220; 6 L. T. 190.
meahs v. the london and south wuhtkbn eailway company. Feb. 23rd, 1862. [S. C. 31 L. J. C. P. 220; 0 L T. 190.] The owner of a chattel, e.y., a barge, which is out on hire for an unexpired term, may maintain an action against a third person for1 a permanent injury thereto. The declaration stated that the plaintiff, before and at the time of the committing of the grievance thereinafter mentioned, was the owner of a certain barge, which said barge was before then let to hire to one John Scott Kussell for a certain time then uuexpired, and the same was then in the possession of the said John Scott Russell by virtue of the said letting, the reversion therein then belonging to the plaintiff;; that the defendants were by their servants in that behalf engaged in raising a boiler! from and out of the said barge ; yet that the defendants were guilty of such negligeiice, carelessness, and improper conduct in and [851] about the raising and attemptjng to raise the said boiler out of the said barge, and used such imprqper and insufficient materials for that purpose, that, by reason thereof, the said boiler fell into the said barge, and greatly damaged and injured the same ; whereby the plaintiff had been deprived of the use of his said barge for a long space oE time, and had lost divers 10BO MEAES V. LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RLY. CO. U C. B. (N. S.)S52. gains and profits which he would have acquired therefrom, and was greatly injured in his reve?sionary interest therein, and would be put to great expense in and about repairing the damage so done to the said barge. :To this declaration the defendants demurred, on the ground that "the facts stated in the declaration shew no cause of action against the defendants." Joinder. Milward, in support of the demurrer (a)1. No precedent is to be found of an action byithe reversibner for any injury to n chattel whilst out of his possession. The barge being at the time of the accident in the possession of Scott Russell, who was apparently the owner, and who was entitled to the possession for an unexpired term, the consequence of holding that the plaintiff may sue will be that the defendants may have two actions: brought against them for the same [852] damages, to neither of which would a judgment in the other be an answer. There was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MCC Proceeds Inc. v Lehman Brothers International (Europe)
... ... 1990, Macmillan Incorporated, a Delaware company taken over in 1988 by Maxwell Communications ... , in Performing Right Society Ltd v London Theatre of VarietiesELR ([1924] AC 1, 14), ... ...
-
East West Corporation v DKBS 1912 (East West Corporation v Dampskibsselskabet AF 1912 A/S)
...to (b) his liability to an owner with no right to immediate possession for any permanent injury to, or loss of, the goods. Mears v. London & South Western Railway Co. (1862) 11 CBNS 850, to which he referred in the latter context, was not a case of liability in bailment; the plaintiff barge......
-
Transcontainer Express Ltd v Custodian Security Ltd
...when a wrongdoer seizes the goods or permanently injures them. In this context he particularly relied on the decisions in Mears v. London & South Western Railway Co. (1862) 11 C.B.N.S. 850 and Meux v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1895) 2 Q.B. 387. These cases are cited in Halsbury's Laws of ......
-
HSBC Rail (UK) Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (Formerly Railtrack Plc)
...of cases starting with Hall v Pickard (1812) 3 Camp 187, going though Tancred v Allgood (1859) 4 H&N 438and culminating in Mears v London and South Western Railway Co (1862) 11 CBNS 850, establishing that a reversionary owner of chattels can sue a negligent wrongdoer if there is permanent d......
-
Table of cases
...v Grandy (1931), [1931] SCR 696, [1932] 1 DLR 225 ........................ 435 Mears v London & South Western Ry Co (1862), 11 CBNS 850, 142 ER 1029 (CP) ....................................................................................331–32 Mercer v Gray, [1941] OR 127, [1941] 3 DLR 564......
-
Intentional Torts
...v Cohen , 337 F 3d 1024 (9th Cir 2003). 226 Thyroff v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co , 8 NY 3d 283 (NY 2007). 227 (1862), 11 CBNS 850, 142 ER 1029 (CP). THE L AW OF TORTS 332 arises, as it did in Mears , as a consequence of negligence and the action is brought in negligence. 5) An Illustrat......