Palmer v The Grand Junction Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1624
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 232; 1 H. 7 H. 489; 8 L. J. Ex. 129; 3 Jur. 559. Discussed, Carpue v. London and Brighton Railway Company, 1844, 5 Q. B. 756; Dav. & M. 608; 3 Railw. Cas. 699. Distinguished, Kent v. Great Western Railway Company, 1846, 3 C. B. 724; 4 D. & L. 481; 4 Railw. Cas. 702. Referred to, Lyles v. Southend-Sea Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 15; Myers v. Bradford Corporation, [1915], K. B. 424.
1624 palmer v. the grand junction railway co. 4 m. 4 w. 749. [749] vacation sittings after hilary term.( i) palmer v. the grand junction railway company. Exch. of Pleas. 1839.- By the statute 3 Will. 4, c. 34, (local and personal, public), the Grand Junction liailway Company are empowered to make a railway from Warrington to Birmingham, by section 154 they are empowered to receive certain tonnage s rates, " for all articles, matters, or things carried or conveyed on the railway;" by section 156 the Company are empowered to become carriers themselves, and are authorized, if they shall think proper to use engines, &c., to carry and convey upon the railway all such passengers, cattle, goods, wares, and merchandise, articles, matters, and things as shall be offered to them for that purpose, upon certain reasonable charges;" by the 214th section, "no action, suit, or information, nor any other proceeding of what nature soever, shall be brought, commenced, or prosecuted against any person for any thing done or omitted to be done in pursuance of the act, or in the execution of the powers or authorities, or any of the orders made, given, or directed in, by, or under the act, unless fourteen days' previous notice in writing shall be given by the parties intending to commence or prosecute such action, &c., nor unless such action, &c. shall be brought within three months;" and by the 215th section, power to tender amends ia given. Under the 156th section, the Company became carriers themselves. In an action against the Company (alleging them to be owners and proprietors of the railway) for not safely carrying arid conveying some horses in their carriages on the railway, whereby one was killed and others were : injured i^Held, that the Company were not entitled to notice of action, as for a thing done or omitted to be done in pursuance of the act; and that, not having restricted their liability by any special contract, they were subject to the liabilities of carriers at common law.-At the trial, there was contradictory evidence as to whether a ticket, by which the Company sought to limit their liability, had been r delivered to the son of the plaintiff, and the learned Judge left it to the jury to i say whether it was delivered to him or not:-Held, that it was no misdirection ; in not directing them to find whether it was read over and explained to him. [S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 232; 1 H. & H. 489 ; 8 L. J. Ex. 129; 3 Jur. 559. Discussed, Carpue v. London and Brighton Railway Company, 1844, 5 Q; B. 756; Dav. & M. fj{)8; 3 Railw. Cas. 699. Distinguished, Kent v. Great Western Railway Company, 1846, 3 C. B. 724; 4 D. & L. 481 ; 4 fiailw. Cas. 702. Referred to, Lyles v. Ssutksnd-on-Sea Corporation, [1905J 2 K. B. 15 ; Myers v. Bradford Corporation, [19151 1 :K. B. 424.] Case. The declaration stated that the defendants, before and at the time of the comtnitting oL the grievances by the defendants thereinafter mentioned, were the owners and proprietors of a certain railway, to wit, &c. &c., and of certain eugines and [carriage* used by them for the carriage and conveyance therein and thereon, of passengers, cattle, goods and chattels, in, upon, and along the said railway, from a certain plac% to wit, Liverpool to a certain other place, to wit, Birmingham, and froui Birmingham to Liverpool, for hire and reward to them the defendants iu that behaflf; and being such owners and proprietors of the said railway, and the said engines and carriages, for the purpose afofesaid, the plaintiff heretofore, and before the Commencing of the said grievances, and before the commencement of this suit, to wit, ob, &e., caused to be delivered to the said defendants, and the said defendants then; received from the plaintiff, divers, to wit, [750] nine horses of the plaintiff, of great value! to wit of the value of 5001., to be safely and securely carried and conveyed by the defendants^ in and upon the said carriages, on and by the said railway, from LiverpeoL aforesaid to Birmingham aforesaid, and there; to wit, at Birmingham afore. said,!te ba safety and securely delivered for the plaintiff, for certain reasonable reward to tbje defendants in that behalf, and thereupon it became and was the duty of the defendants safejy and securely to carry and convey and deliver for the plaintiff at Birmiinghara aforesaid, the said horses of the plaintiff. Breach, that the defendantey not regarding; their duty in that behalf, did not use due or proper care in and about (a) Under the authority of the stat. 1 & 2 Viet. c. 32. 4M.4W.7B1. PALMEB V. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY CO. 1625 the carriage and conveyance of the said horses of the plaintiff from Liverpool aforesaid to Birmingham aforesaid, but took so little and such bad care in and about the carrying and conveying the said horses of the plaintiff, and in conducting, managing, and directing their the defendant's said carriages in and upon and along the said railway, that the1 carriages which contained the said horses of the plaintiff, were then thrown atid cast with great force and violence off and from the said railway, and over and down afcertain embankment and bank down to and upon the ground, and then were crushed and broken to pieces, and thereby one of the horses of the said plaintiff, of great value, to wit, &c. was then killed, and the residue of the said horses of the plaintiff, of great value, to wife, &o. were then greatly bruised, lacerated, cut, strained, and injured, and deteriorated in value, and rendered and became wholly useless- to the plaintiff. The declaration then alleged damage which the plaintiff had sustained by the clothing and harness attached to the horses being torn and damaged, and the expense of medicine aud attendance provided for the horses, and of the losa of gains and profits which otherwise would have been obtained for the use of the horses. [751] Pleas, 1st, not guilty; 2ndly, that the defendants did not receive from the plaintiff the said horses, or any of them, to be safely and securely carried and conveyed by the defendants in and upon the said carriages, on and by the said railway, from Liverpool aforesaid to Birmingham aforesaid, and then, to wit, at Birmingham aforesaid, to be safely and securely delivered for the plaintiff, in manner and form as the plaintiff hath in his declaration in that behalf alleged; upon which plen,s issues were joined. At the trial before Tindal, 0. J., at the last Summer Assizes for the county of Warwick, it appeared that the plaintiff was a horse-dealer at Northampton, and upon the I3£h of February, having some horses at Liverpool, he applied at the booking-office of the defendants there, who were carriers upon the lino, and also the owners and proprietors of the Grand Junction Railway, and wore incorporated by art act of 3 Will. 4, c. 34, (local and personal), to hava some horses carried by their railway to Birmingham. Sine horses were accordingly booked, and 101. K)s. paid for their carriage, to go by a train from Liverpool at half-past four in the afternoon; at which time they left, with the plaintiff's son in attendance upon them, the horses having been placed in three horse-boxes, being a kind of caravan constructed for the purpose on four wheels and. adapted to the railway The train proceeded safely until within ti few miles of Birmingham, when, as it was proceeding at about the usual rate, the e'ngifie was sudqleuly thrown off the rails, in consequence of coming in contact with a horsfe, which had strayed from an adjoining field, and lain down upon the railway. The; engine, tender, and horse-boxes, were thrown off the rails, and running down the embankment into the adjoining field, were instantly overturned. One of the horses was killed upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alves v Attorney General of the Virgin Islands (British Virgin Islands)
...General v. Company of Proprietors of Margate Pier and Harbour [1900] 1 Ch 749 – Bradford Corporation v. Myers [1916] AC 242 – Palmer v. Grand Junction Railway Co (1839) 4 M & W 749; 50 ER 1624 – Parker v. London County Council [1904] 2 KB 501 – Carpue v. London & Brighton Railway (1844) ......
-
McManus v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
...ships. The liability of the carrier of live animals is the ordinary liability of a carrier: Palmer v. The Grand Junction Railway Company (4 M & W. 749) There is a distinction as to passengers, because they cannot be controlled. [Unthank. The Act applies to animals; and it is not contended t......
-
Parker v The Great Western Railway Company
...6 D. & R. 257), Parsons v. Blandy (Wightw. 22), Smith v. Bromley (2 Dougl. 697, n.), Palmer v. The Grand Junction Railway [285] Company (4 M. & W. 749), Pozzi v. Shipton (8 A. & E. 963, 1 P. & D. 4), Astley v. Reynolds (2 Stra. 915). Bompas Serjt. (with whom were Whateley and Keating) for t......
-
The Complaint of William Oxlade against the North Eastern Railway Company
...it must be borne in mind that the company are not common carriers of coal and coke : Palmer v. The Grand Junction Railway Company, 4 M. & W. 749; Johnson v. The Midland Railway Company, 4 Exch. 367. Then it is insisted that the company are bound to find depots for the use of the complainant......