Stephenson v Hart and Waterhouse
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1828 |
| Date | 11 February 1828 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 851
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 1 Moo. & P. 357; 6 L. J. C. P. (O. S.) 97. Applied, Heugh v. London and North Western Railway, 1870, L. R. 5 Ex. 57.
[476] stephenson v. hart and waterhouse. Feb. 11, 1828. [S. C. 1 Moo. & P. 357 ; 6 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 97. Applied, Heugh v. London and North Western Railway, 1870, L. K. 5 Ex. 57.] Plaintiff having been imposed upon by a swindler, consigned a box at Birmingham by the Defendants, as common carriers, to J. West, 27 Great Winchester Street, London. The Defendants found that no such person resided there; but upon receiving a letter signed J. West, requesting that the box might be forwarded to a public house at St. Alban's, they delivered it there to a parson calling hitnaelf West, who shewed that he had a knowledge of the contents of the box: that person having disappeared, and the box having been originally obtained of the Plaintiff by fraud, Held, that the Defendants were liable to him in an action of trover. Gaselee J. disaentiente. -Held, also, that it was properly left to the jury to say, whether the Dafendants had delivered the box according to the due course of their business as carriers. Case against the Defendants as carriers. The first count of the declaration alleged, that the Defendants had received from the Plaintiff a box containing money, goods, and chattels, of the value of 501., to be safely carried by the Defendants from Birmingham to London, and there, at London, " to be safely delivered for the Plaintiff, for certain reasonable reward to the Defendants in that behalf." Yet that the Defendants, not regarding their duty in that behalf, did not deliver the box and its contents lor the Plaintiff; but that Defendants so negligently conducted themselves in the premises, that through their negligence and default the box with its contents were lost to the Plaintiff. The second count stated, that the Defendants had received the box and ita contents of the Plaintiff at Birmingham, to be safely kept by the Defendants, and upon demand to be redelivered to the Plaintiff. Yet the Defendants, not regarding their duty in that behalf, did not safely keep the box and its contents for the Plaintiff, nor redeliver it upon his demanding it, but so negligently conducted themselves in the premises, that through their negligence and default the box and its contents were lost to the Plaintiff. The third count waa in trover, with an allegation that the Defendants had converted the box and its contents to their own use. Plea, not guilty. [477} At the trial before Lord Tenterden C. J., at the last Summer assizes at Warwick, the facts were as follow :- On the 27th of September 1826, a person calling himself J. West applied to the Plaintiff, a comb manufacturer at Birmingham, for a parcel of combs, and after taking a certain quantity with him, ordered 301. worth to be forwarded as early as possible, addressed to J. West, Esq., 27 Great Winchester Street, London. In payment he gave the Plaintiff a bill of exchange which had two months to run, purporting to ba drawn at Edinburgh for 501. by Guerin, upon Le Cointe and Co., merchants, Devonshire Square, London, and accepted by them, payable at Smith, Payne, and Smith, 852 STEPHENSON V. HART 4BIHG.478. bankers, London. There were several indorsements on the bill, and one purporting to be for the Royal Bank of Scotland. The plaintiff agreed to discount the bill; and on the 30th September packed up the combs, and tbe change supposed to be due to West (61. 10s.), in a box; addressed it as directed by West; and booked it for London at the Defendants' office in Birmingham. The box arrived the next day: the Defendants, upon offering to deliver it at No. 27 Great Winchester Street, found, not only that no such person as West was known there, bot that the house had not been tenanted for a twelvemonth. About a week or ten dajts afterwards, the Defendants received a letter from St. Alban's, signed J. West, informing them that a box for him had been addressed by mistake to Great Winchester Street, and requesting them to forward it to the Pea Hen, a public house at St. Alban's. The Defendants forwarded the box accordingly, when a person calling himself West, who had been staying two or three days at the Pea Hen, and who had told the mistress of the house that he could not pay her bill till a box arrived iu which he expected money, said on its arrival, " That is the box I expected; it contains money;" and proceeding to open [478] it, took out money and paid hia bill. He shortly afterwards disappeared. The bill of exchange given by West to the Plaintiff having been presented for payment when it became due in December, it was found that there was no such firm as La Cointe and Co. in Devonshire Square, and that nn such persons had ever kept cash with Smith, Payne, and Smith (a). Application for the box on behalf of the Plaintiff was then made at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilbraham v Snow
...But trover will lie against a carrier who delivers goods to a wrong person, though by mistake ; Peake's N. P. C. 68, Yoid v. Harbottle. [4 Bing. 476, Stephenson v. Hart. 1 M. & P. 357, S. C. 8 M. & W. 461, Wyld v. Pickford, per Parke B. :] or against a warehouseman under the same circumstan......
-
Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
...v. HollingworthENR 5 T. R. 231. Milwwod v. ForbesENR 4 Esp. 171, 173. Earl of Bristol v. WilsomoreENR 1 B. & C. 514. Stephenson v. HartENR 4 Bing. 476, 483. Regina v. Walne 1 Cox, C. C. 647. R. v. JacksonENR 3 Camp. 370. Hawse v. Crowe Ry. & Moo. 414. Moore v. BushellUNK 27 L. J. Ex. 3. Wil......
-
Belfast & Ballymena Railway Company, in Error, v Keys. Londonderry & Coleraine Railway Company, in Error, v Same
...10 m. & W. 161-8 Hearn v. London and South Coast Railway CompanyENR 10 Ex. 793. Brook v. RichardsENR 4 Bing. 218. Stevenson v. HartENR 4 Bing. 476. Langley v. BrownUNK 1 M. & P. 563, S. C.; 2 Bro. & Bing. 177. Great Northern Railway Company v. RimmellENR 18 C. B. 575. Butt v. Great Western ......
-
The Great Western Railway Company v Crouch
...a carrier has a further duty to perform, he is responsible for the safety of the goods . Story on Bailments, 541, 542 Stephenson v. Had (4 Bing. 476) shews that the carrier's responsibility continues until the delivery is complete. Ostian&er v. Biowii (15 Johnson (New York), 39) is an autho......
-
Table of cases
...Stevenson Estate v. Siewert, 2000 ABCA 222 .....................................................314 Stevenson v. Hart (1828), 4 Bing. 476, 130 E.R. 851 .......................................... 432 Stewart Estate, Re (1997), 203 A.R. 125, 31 B.L.R. (2d) 124, [1997] A.J. No. 391 (Surr. Ct.)......
-
Safekeeping
...Martin & Sons Ltd ., [1965] 2 All E.R. 725 (C.A.). 15 Lilley v. Doubleday (1881), 7 Q.B.D. 510. 16 Stevenson v. Hart (1828), 4 Bing. 476, 130 E.R. 851; Glyns Mills, Currie & Co . v. East and West India Dock Co . (1882), 7 App. Cas. 591 (H.L.). 17 United States of America v. Dollfus Mieg et ......