Phillips and Another v Edwards and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1858 |
| Date | 23 November 1858 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 696
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 28 L. J. Ex. 52.
[813] phillips and another v. edwards and others. Nov 23, 1858.-The defendants, owners of a steam-vessel plying between Bristol and London, issued every mouth hand-bills of the times of their vessels sailing, and which contained a notice that they "received goods for shipment on the conditions and agreement only that they are not liable for inward condition, leakage and breakage, and that they would not receive any goods for conveyance by their vessels except upon the terms that they should not be responsible for any loss or damage of or to such goods from any cause whatever during the voyage." On the 8th March, the plaintiffs, who had received these hand-bills, shipped on board one of the defendants' vessels two casks of brandy to be carried to Falmouth. On the llth March the shipping broker delivered to the plaintiffs a freight note, at the foot of which was a notice that the defendants did not hold themselves liable for leakage of oils, spirits or other liquids, unless from bad stowage. In the course of the voyage one of the casks of brandy was staved in and nearly all its contents lost Held, that the notice in the hand-bills constituted the terms of the contract under which tie goods were shipped, and that those terms were not qualified by the notice at tie foot of the freight note, and consequently the defendants were not responsible. [S. C. 28 L. J Ex. 52.] The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendants were common carriers of goods and chattels for hire from Bristol to Falmouth by water ; and the plaintiffs, whilst they were such common cairiers, delivered to them, and they then accepted from the plaintiffs^ two casks of brandy to be securely carried and conveyed by them from Bristol to Falmouth, and there, to wit at Falmouth, safely arid securely delivered for the plaintiffs, for certain reasonable rewards to the defendants in that behalf: Yet the defendants, not regarding their duty, &c., did not nor would safely or securely convey the sadd casks and their contents from Bristol to Falmouth, nor there to wit at Falmouth, safely or securely deliver the same for the plaintiffs , but, on the contrary thereof, the defendants so carelessly and negligently conducted themselves in the premises that, by and through the carelessness, negligence and default of the defendants, one of the casks became staved, broken and damaged, and a large quantity of the brandy therein leaked out and escaped, &c. The second count stated, that the plaintiffs delivered to the defendants, and [814] the defendants accepted from the plaintiffs, two casks of brandy, to be by them, for certain reasonable reward in that behalf, carried and conveyed for the plaintiffs from Bristol to Falmouth by a certain ship of the defendants, which was then about to proceed and sail, and did accordingly proceed and sail, from Bristol to Falmouth, upon the terms, amongst others, that the defendants should take due care of the said goods during the voyage, and on the arrival of the said 3H&W815. PHILLIPS V. EDWARDS 697 goods at Falmoath, should forthwith deliver the same at Falmouth for the plaintiffs : Yet the defendants did not nor would take due cure of the said goods during the voyage, and did not nor would, on the arrival of the said goods at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Lloyd The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company v
...875. Harrison v. The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company 6 Jur., N. S., 954; S. C., 2 B. & Sm. 122. Phillips v. EdwardsENR 3 H. & N. 813. Lewis v. The Great Western Railway CompanyENR 5 H. & N. 867. Phillips v. ClarkENR 2 C. B., N. S., 156. Lyon v. MellsENR 5 East, 428. White v......
-
In ex parte Harris, Re the Anglo-French Porcelain Company Ltd, and the Anglo-French Porcelain Company Ltd v Harris
...Company for one or more instalments upon his shares that the substituted article applied only to (a) See 19 & 20 Viet, c. 47, ss. d3, 34. 3H&N. 813, MALTBY V. MURIIELLS 1405 shareholder a who should become such after its date: that the resolution which purported to enact it was inoperative ......