The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, Appellants; Wallis and Another, Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 January 1854 |
| Date | 23 January 1854 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 88
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 7 Railw. Cas. 709; 2 C. L. R. 573; 23 L. J. C. P. 85; 18 Jur. 268; 2 W. R. 194. Followed, Midland Railway v. Daykin, 1855, 17 C. B. 129. Approved, Chapman v. South Eastern Railway, 1888, 21 Q. B. D. 527. Discussed, Luscombe v. Great Western Railway, (1899) 2 Q. B. 317. Referred to, Gorman v. Waterford and Limerick Railway, (1900) 2 I. R. 350. Distinguished, R. v. Somers, (1906) 1 K. B. 329.
THE MANCHESTER,, SHEFFIELD, AND 14 C. B. 213. [213] cases argued and determined in the court of common pleas, in hilary term, in the seventeenth year of the reign of victoria. The judges who usually sat in banco in this term were,-Jervis, C. J., Maule, J., Cress well, J., and Williams, J. the manchester, sheffield, and lincolnshire railway company, Appellants ; wallis and another, Respondents. Jan. 23, 1854. [S. C. 7 Railw. Gas. 709; 2 C. L. R. 573; 23 L. J. C. P. 85 ; 18 Jur. 268; 2 W. R. 194. Followed, Midland Railway v. DayHn, 1855, 17 C. B. 129. Approved, Chapman v. South .Eastern Railway, 1888, 21 Q. B. D. 527. Discussed, Luscombe v. Great Western Railway, [1899] 2 Q. B. 317. Referred to, Gorman v. Waterford and Limerick Railway, [1900] 2 I. R. 350. Distinguished, R. v. Somers, [1906] 1 K. B. 329.] The obligation of a railway company, under the 8 & 9 Viet. c. 20, s. 68, to fence .against the owners and occupiers of lands adjoining the railway, is co-extensive only with the common law prescriptive obligation to repair fences; and therefore, assuming a highway running parallel with the railway, to be "adjoining land" within the meaning of the statute, the company are not responsible for injury done to cattle straying thereon, in consequence of their getting through an open gate into the station-yard, and thence on to the railway : though it would be otherwise, if the cattle were using the highway according to the dedication of the owner of the soil.-The 68th section of the 8 & 9 Viet. c. 20, which provides for the fencing of railways from the adjoining lands, is a substitution for the 10th section of the 5 & 6 Viet. c. 55. This was an appeal by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, the defendants below, against the ruling of the judge of the county-court of Leicester, in an action brought by Wallis and another, the plaintiffs below, against the company to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenhalgh v British Railways Board
...railway. They escaped through a defective fence and were run over by a train. The Company was held liable, see The Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company v. Wallis, (1854, 14 Common Bench at page 213), 38 applied in Midland Railway v. Daykin, (1855 17 C.B. page 125). But tho......
-
British Oxygen Company Ltd v Board of Trade
... ... of Trade) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants) ... Mr. J.A. BRIGHTMAN, Q.C. and ... & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Plaintiffs) ... LORD JUSTICE ... ...
-
Mulhall and Another uthern Railways Company
... ... High Court. Railway company - Liability to fence - Extent of ... Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Co. v ... v. Wallis(1). Holding himself bound by that decision, the ... ...
-
Gorman v The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company
... ... Div. the railway line, ran to and across another county road. It was 1899- not repaired by the ... On this, The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln Ry. Company v. Wallis (2) ... in Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company v. Wallis (2), or Matson v. Baird ... ...