Rumsey v The North-Eastern Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1863 |
| Date | 10 June 1863 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 596
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 32 L. J. C. P. 244; 8 L. T. 666; 10 Jur. N. S. 208; 11 W. R. 911; 2 N. R. 360. Distinguished, Mercantile Bank v. Gladstone, 1868, L. R. 3 Ex. 241.
[641] rumhey d. the north-eastern railway company. June 10th, 1863, [S. C. 32 L. J. C. P. 244; 8 L. T. 660 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 208; 11 W. R. 911 ; 2 N. R 360. Distinguished, Mercantile Bank v. Gladstone, 1868, L. R. 3 Ex. 241.] '.iOf, The 39th section of the North-Eastern Railway Company's Act, 17 & 18 Viet. c. ccxi., enacts that "every passenger travelling upon the said railways may take with him hia ordinary luggage, not exceeding 150 Ibs. in weight for first-class passengers, and 100 Ibs. in weight for second and third-class passengers, without any extra charge being made lor the carriage thereof: "-Held, that this does not preclude the company from making special arrangements for the exclusion of luggage by cheap excursion trains.-The plaintiff took an excursion-ticket for a journey from Scarborough to Ayhitby, for: which he paid 5s., knowing that the company declined to carry any Ipggage for ;passengers travelling with excursion-tickets, and that, if he went (as he might have'done by the same train) as an ordinary passenger, with luggage, the price of the ticket would be 9s. Before taking his ticket, the plaintiff had procured one of the company's porters to place his portmanteau in the luggage-van, not informing tie porter how he was going to travel. On arriving at Malton, an intermediate station, the plaintiff requested that hia portmanteau might be taken out of the van, to await his return from Whitby, on his way to York. The guard, however, refused to allow this to be done, the portmanteau not being booked ; and it was accordingly carried on to Whitby, where the company's servants refused to deliver it up without being paid for the carriage from Scarborough to Whitby :-Held, that the circumstances raised an implied contract for the carriage of the portmanteau for hire, and therefore that the company were justified in detaining it. This waa an action against the North-Eastern Railway Company for the alleged unlawful detention of a portmanteau containing personal luggage arid samples belonging to the plaintiff, a commercial traveller. 14 0. B. (N.a.)flM. RUMSEY V. THE NORTH-EASTRRN RLY. CO, 597 The cause was tried before Martin, B., at the last Spring Assizes at York. The facts which appeared in evidence were as follows:-The North-Eastern Railway Company are in the habit of running excursion trains to and from the various watering-places on the coast, for which, besides the ordinary tickets, they issued others at a lower rate of charge on the condition (advertised by placards and handbills) that persons availing themselves of these tickets should carry with them no luggage. Towards the end of October last, the plaintiff', who wished to go from Scarborough to Whitby and thence to York, went to the railway station at Scarborough with a portmanteau containing the articles before mentioned. Having got a porter to place the portmanteau in the luggage-van, the plaintiff proceeded to the booking-office anrl there obtained from the clerk a ticket,-a first-class day-ticket, having tho word " Excursion " printer! upon it,-for which he paid os.; the price of an ordinary day-ticket for the [642] same journey being 9s. Tho course of the journey was from .Scarborough to Rillington, thence to Malton, where those passengers who are going to Whitby get out and proceed by another train. When the train arrived at Malton, the plaintiff' asked the guard to take the portmanteau out of tho van, intending to leave it at Malton, in order that it might, on his return from Whitby, go on with him to York. The guard declined to do this, telling him that, as it was not booked for York, it must go on with him to Whitby. On his arrival at Whitby, the plaintiff went to the Commercial Inn, whence he sent the boots to the station for the portmanteau. The station-master refused to give it to him unless he paid 3s. Id. for the carriage, --is. from Scarborough to Malton, and Is. Id. from Malton to Whitby. On his cross-examination, the plaintiff denied that he had seen the company's placards announcing that no luggage was allowed to be carried by passengers travelling with excursion-tickets ; but he admitted that he had seen a smaller handbill containing the same announcement. On the part of the plaintiff, reliance was placed upon the ; 9th section of the company's consolidation act of 17 & IS Viet, c, ccxi., which enacts that "every passenger travelling upon the said railways may take with him his ordinary luggage, not exceeding 150 Ibs. in weight for first-class passengers, and 100 Ibs. in weight for second and third-class passengers, without any extra charge being made for the carriage thereof ; " and it was insisted that this provision was imperative upon the company under all circumstances. On the part of the defendants it was submitted that the 39th section of the statute applied to passengers travelling in the ordinary way, and did not extend to prevent the company from making special bargains for [643] the exclusion of luggage from excursion-trains, which from their nature required special arrangements which would be frustrated by the trouble and delay necessarily attendant upon the conveyance of luggage. The learned Baron, however, ruled that the act of parliament entitled every passenger to carry with him the stipulated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carnival plc v Karpik (The Ruby Princess)
...or waive a privilege which the law has conferred on her or him: Rumsey v North-Eastern Railway Company (1863) 14 CB (NS) 641 at 649; 143 ER 596 at 600 per Erle CJ. See also Brown v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 171 at 178 and the cases there See also the observations of Pagone and Davies JJ at 4......
- Nullagine Investments Pty Ltd Vwa Club Inc.
- Harrington v Browne