Scothorn and another v The South Staffordshire Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1853 |
| Date | 22 January 1853 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1378
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 7 Railw Cas 810, 22 L J Ex 121, 17 Jur 214, 1 W R 154
[341] SCOTHQRN AND ANOTHER V THE SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY Jan 22, 1853 -The plaintiff delivered at a station of the South Staffordshire Rarlway Company certain goods, addiessed " to the East India Docks, London," and paid one sum for their carnage the whole distance By the practice of the South Staffordshire Railway all goods deliverer! at that station for London are forwarded on their own line to Birmingham, and from thence by the London and North Western Railway Before the goods in question amvecl in London, the plaintiff directed a clerk at the London station of the latter Company to forwaid them to another place, whrch the clerk promised to do The goods were however delivered according to the original address, and thereby lost -Held, that the South Staffordshire Railway Company were responsible for the loss [S C 7 Railw Cas 810, 22 L J Ex 121, 17 Jur 214, 1 VV R 154] Assumpsit The declaration stated, that the plaintiffs, on &a, delivered to the defendants certain goods and chattels of the plaintiffs, to be safely and carefully carried and conveyed from a certain railway station of the defendants, called "The Great Bridge Station," to London, and then paid the defendants a certain sum of money, their hire and reward in that behalf , and the defendants then promised the plaintiffs to deliver the said goods and chattels according to the dnection of the plaintiffs in that.behalf Bleach, that, although the plaintiffs afterwards directed the defendants to deliver the said goods and chattels at a certain place in London, called " The Bell Wharf, Ratcliffe, London," and although the defendants, by the servants of the London and North Western Railway Company, their lawful agents in that behalf, promised to deliver the goods according to the dnection of the plaintiffs, yet they neglected so to do, and, contrary to the directions of the plaintiffs, transmitted the same to a certain place called ' Melbourne," in the colony of Australia , in consequence whereof the plaujtiffs lost and were deprived of the said goods and chattels, and were unable from, the loss thereof to proceed on their voyage as emigrants, which they intended to do and otherwise would have done, and were hindered and prevented from earning their livelihood m the way of their business, and were kept and detained in London without employment &c Pleas -Firat, that the goods were not delivered to the defendants to be carried fromi " The Great Bridge Station " to London Secondly, that the defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farley v Skinner (No 2)
... ... to the judgment of Hobbs v London and South Western Railway Co (1875) LR 10 QB 111 , 122, ... The railway company paid into court £2 as being ample to cover the ... or for inconvenience of one kind or another'" ... 50 Whilst ... ...
-
Midland Silicones Ltd v Scruttons Ltd
...reason that he had no contract with him. The owner's only remedy was against the first carrier with whom he contracted, see Scothorn v. South Staffordshire Coy. Ltd. (1853) 9 Ex. 341: and not against the second carrier with whom he had no contract, see Mytton v. Midland Rly. Co. (1859) 4 H.......
-
The "Vasiliy Golovnin"
...the carriage of cargo by rail. It relied on a line of 19th century cases, namely, Scothorn v The South Staffordshire Railway Company (1853) 8 Exch 341; 155 ER 1378 (“Scothorn”) and The London and North Western Railway Company v Bartlett (1861) 7 H & N 400; 158 ER 529 (“London & NW Railway”)......
-
Rylands and Another v Fletcher
...A C. 391 any part of the journey. That principle was recognized and adopted in Seothoi'n v. The 8auth Staffordshire Railway Company (8 Exch. 341). [Martin, B. The decision of the House of Lords in The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company v. Collins (7 Ff L. Cas. 194) is conclusive of this cas......