Turner v Stallibrass
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1898 |
| Date | 1898 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Practice - Costs - Action founded on Tort - Contract of Agistment - Bailment - Negligence -
An action founded on the common law liability of a bailee is an action founded on tort within the meaning of s. 116 of the County Courts Act, 1888.
APPEAL from an order of a judge at chambers as after-mentioned.
The action was brought to recover damages in respect of injury to a horse belonging to the plaintiff. The statement of claim alleged that the plaintiff delivered to the defendants a horse, the property of the plaintiff, to be agisted, kept, and taken care of by the defendants in consideration of a payment of one shilling a day by the plaintiff to the defendants; and the defendants promised the plaintiff in consideration of the premises to safely keep, agist, and take care of the said horse; and that in breach of the said contract the defendants did not safely keep, agist, and take care of the said horse, but negligently erected in the field in which the said horse was turned out a low wire fence, and negligently permitted the grass to grow so as to hide the said wire fence, whereby the plaintiff's horse was injured. Alternatively, the statement of claim alleged that the defendants in breach of their contract negligently allowed the said horse to be kept and to remain in a field containing the said wire fence so concealed as aforesaid, whereby the plaintiff's horse was injured.
It appeared at the trial that the plaintiff had delivered the horse in question to the defendants for agistment, and that the horse had been placed in a field where there was a barbed wire fence concealed by long grass, through which injury had been occasioned to the horse. The learned judge left it to the jury to say whether it was negligent on the part of the defendants to put the horse in a field where there was such a fence as that in question. The jury found for the plaintiff for 30l. damages. The master held on taxation that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the action on the High Court scale; but on appeal the judge reversed his decision, holding that the action was one founded on contract within the meaning of s. 116 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and therefore the plaintiff was only entitled to costs on the county court scale.
T. Willes Chitty, for the plaintiff. This was an action founded on tort within the meaning of s. 116 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and the plaintiff, having recovered therein more than 20l., was entitled to costs on the High Court scale. The test laid down in Taylor v. Manchester,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jackson v Mayfair Window Cleaning Company Ltd
-
Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse, [1986] 2 SCR 147
...Davies, Smith, Vandervell & Co., [1936] 1 K.B. 399; Kelly v. Metropolitan Railway Co., [1895] 1 Q.B. 944; Turner v. Stallibrass, [1898] 1 Q.B. 56; Sachs v. Henderson, [1902] 1 K.B. 612; Edwards v. Mallan, [1908] 1 K.B. 1002; Jackson v. Mayfair Window Cleaning Co., [1952] 1 All E.R. 215;......
-
Finlay v Murtagh
...and Leinster BankIR [1940] I.R. 77. 2 Jarvis v. Moy, Davies, Smith, Vandervell & Co.ELR [1936] 1 K.B. 399. 3 Turner v. StallibrassELR [1898] 1 Q.B. 56. 4 Somers v. ErskineIR [1943] I.R. 348. 5 Groom v. CrockerELR [1939] 1 K.B. 194. 6 Heywood v. WellersELR [1976] Q.B. 446. 7 McGrath v. Kiely......
-
Hutchings v Islington London Borough Council
...of which it is necessary for the plaintiff to rely on, or prove a contract, then the action is founded on contract" (per Smith L.J. in Turner v. Stallibras [1898] 1 Q.B. 56 at 58). 46 The appellant cannot "found" his claim without alleging and proving what his terms of employment were. It t......