Phillips and Another v Clark
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 1857 |
| Date | 23 April 1857 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 372
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 168; 3 Jur. N. S. 467; 5 W. R. 582. Referred to, Ohrloff v. Briscall; The Helene, 1866, L. R. 1 P. C. 238; Czech v. General Steam Navigation Company, 1867, L. R. 3 C. P. 17. Applied, Grill v. General Iron Sand Colliery Company, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 481. Referred to, The Duero, 1869, L. R. 2 Ad. & E. 396; Gill v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, 1873, L. R. 8 Q. B. 196; Steel v. State Line Steamship Company, 1877, 3 App. Cas. 87; Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Company, 1882-83, 9 Q. B. D. 124; 10 Q. B. D. 531. Explained, Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway v. Brown, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 709. Referred to, Steinman v. Angier Line, [1891] 1 Q. B. 624; The Glendarroch, [1894] P. 237; Price v. Union Lighterage Company, [1903] 1 K. B. 753; [1904] 1 K. B. 415.
[156] phillips and another .v. clark. April 23rd, 1857. [S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 168; 3 Jur. N. S. 467; 5 W. E. 582. Eeferred to, Ohrloff v. Briscall; The Helene, 1866, L. E. 1 P. C. 238; Czech v. General Steam Navigation Company, 1867, L. B. 3 C. P. 17. Applied, Grill v. General Iron Sand Colliery Company, 1868, L. E. 3 C. P. 481. Eeferred to, The Duero, 1869, L. B. 2 Ad. & E. 396 ; Gill v. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, 1873, L. E. 8 Q. B. 196 ; Steel v. State Line Steamship Company, 1877, 3 App. Cas. 87; Chartered Mercantile Bank of India v. Netherlands India Steam Navigation Company, 1882-83, 9 Q. B. D. 124; 10 Q. B. D. 531. Explained, Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway v. Brown, 1883, 8 App. Cas. 709. Eeferred to, Steinman v. Angier Line, [1891] 1 Q. B. 624; The Glendarroch, [1894] P. 237; Price v. Union Lighterage Company, [1903] 1 K. B. 753; [1904] 1 K. B. 415.] A stipulation in a bill of lading, that the ship-owner is "not to be accountable for leakage or breakage," does not exempt him from responsibility for a loss by these means, arising from gross negligence. The declaration stated that the plaintiffs delivered to the defendant, and the defendant accepted and received from the plaintiffs, certain goods of the plaintiffs', to be carried in a certain ship of the defendant, to wit, from London to Calcutta, and thence back to London (certain perils and casualties only excepted), for certain freight and reward in that behalf payable by the plaintiffs to the defendant, and upon the terms that the defendant should use due and proper care in and about the stowage of the goods; and that, though the plaintiffs had done all things, and all things had happened, necessary to entitle them to have the goods so stowed, yet that the defendant did not nor would use due and proper care in and about the stowage of the said goods, but so carelessly and negligently stowed the same contrary to his said duty, that, by reason thereof, and not by reason of any of the said excepted perils or casualties, the said goods were greatly damaged and injured: And the plaintiff claimed 5001. Fourth plea,-that the plaintiffs delivered the said goods to the defendant, and he accepted and received the same, to be carried as in the declaration mentioned, upon the express condition only that the defendant should not be accountable for leakage or breakage; and that the loss and damage complained of by the plaintiffs arose wholly from leakage and breakage, and not otherwise. Second replication to the fourth plea,-that the condition in that plea mentioned consisted of certain words inserted by the defendant in the margin of the bill of lading under which the said goods were shipped on board [157] the said ship of the 2C.B.(N.S.)158. PHILLIPS V. OLARK 373 defendant to be carried as in the declaration mentioned, which said bill of lading was in the words and figures following, that is to say :- "Shipped in good order and well-conditioned, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lauritzen (J.) A.S. v Wijsmuller B.v (Super Servant Two)
-
Essa v Divaris
...Halsbury (supra, Vol. 1, p. 794); Price & Co v Union Lighterage Co. (1903, 1 K.B. 750, and 1904, 1 K.B. 412); Phillips v Clark (140 E.R. 372 at p. 375); Rosenthal v Marks (1944 TPD 172 at p. 177); Weinberg v Oliver (1943 AD 181 at p. 188); Taylor and Others v Liverpool and Great Western Ste......
-
Lauritzen (J.) A.S. v Wijsmuller B.v (Super Servant Two)
... ... , Super Servant Two foundered and became a total loss in the course of off-loading another drilling rig in the Zaire River. For purposes of these preliminary issues it is to be assumed, as ... See Phillips v. Clark 2 C.B. (N.S.) 156 , and Czech v. General Steam Navigation Co. L.R.3 C.P.14 where Byles ... ...
-
White (Arthur) (Contractors) Ltd v Tarmac Civil Engineering Ltd
...clause will be construed as relating to B. 's liability for negligence only if there is no other liability to which it can refer. In Phillips v. Clark (1857) 2 Common Bench 156, Mr. Justice Crowder, at page 163 clearly stated the general principle. He said: "The simple question is, what did......