Pardington v the South Wales Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 November 1856 |
| Date | 03 November 1856 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1254
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 26 L. J. Ex 105; 2 Jur. (N S.) 1210, 5 W. R. 8
[392] exchequer reports michaelmas term, 20 vict. pardington v. the south wales railway company Nov. 3, 1856-A peison sending cattle by railway signed a contract containing the following amongst other conditions . "A pass for a drover to ride with his stock will be given The Company is to be held free from all risk in respect of any damage arising in the loading, or unloading, from suffocation, or from being trampled upon, bruised, 01 1H&N 393 PARDINGTON V. SOUTH WALES RAILWAY COMPANY 1'255 otherwise injured in transit, from fire, or from any other cause whatsoever " A drover leceived a pass to go with the cattle. The cattle were not put into proper cattle trucks, but into vans closing with lids, ordinarily used for the conveyance of salt, the diover not objecting The lid of one of the vans having become closed in the course of the journey several of the cattle weie suffocated, the drover being at the time in another carriage -Held, that the conditions were reasonable, and that the Company were not responsible -Semble, per Martin, B, and Bramwell B, that notwithstanding 17 & 18 Viet c 31, s. 7, special contracts with Railway Companies are binding, whether the conditions contained in them are reasonable or not. [S C 26 L. J. Ex 105; 2 Jut. (N S.) 1210, f W. R 8 ] The declaration stated that the defendants were the owners of a certain railway, and of certain carriages used by them to carry cattle on the said lailway foi hue . that the plaintiff delivered to the defendants thuty-three head of cattle to he safely earned by the defendants on the said railway fiom Newport to Gloucester, and that it became the duty of the defendants to take proper care about the carnage of the said cattle, but that they so carelessly and unskilfully conducted themselves about the carriage, that several of the said cattle were suffocated and others injured, in consequence of the want of due caie and skill on the pait of the Company. [393] Pleas, First, not guilty. Second, that the plaintiff did not deliver to the defendants the said cattle to be safely earned, &c Thirdly, that the cattle weie delivered to and teceived by the defendants to be carried fiom Newport to Gloucester under *a special contract signed by the peison who delivered the said cattle to the defendants for carriage, arid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McManus v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
...given by the Exchequer in Wise v. Great Western Railway Company (1 H. & N. 63) and Pardington v. The South tPales Railway Company (1 H & N. 392), [336] deciding that the clause in the statute relating to conditions does not extend to special contracts In my opinion, the defendants are right......
-
Peek against The North Staffordshire Railway Company
...reasonable, and provided, also, that it be signed by the owner or deliverer of the goods.] In Pardington v. South Wales Railway Company (1 H. & N. 392) two of the learned judges, Martin B. and [969] Bramwell B., appear to have considered that reasonableness was not a necessary element in a ......
-
Beal and Another v The South Devon Railway Company
...trams, was at liberty to make any coritiact they thought fit for that [882] purpose. In Parding-tvn v. The South Wales Railway Company (1 H. & N 392), the Company earned cattle upon condition of exemption from liability for injury from any cause whatsoever, and that was held reasonable. In ......
-
Thomas Lloyd The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company v
...WATERFORD AND LIMERICK RAILWAY CO. and Armstrong v. TurquandIR 9 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 32. Pardington v. The South Wales Railway CompanyENR 1 H. & N. 392. M'Manus v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & N. 693. Beal v. The South Devon Railway CompanyENR 5 H. & N. 875. Harrison......