William Peek, - Plaintiff; The Directors, etc. of the North Staffordshire Railway Company, - Defendants
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 April 1862 |
| Date | 14 April 1862 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 11 E.R. 1109
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. iii. 115, 117, 118, 120. S.C. 32 L.J. Q.B. 241; 9 Jur. N.S. 914; 8 L.T. 768; 11 W.R. 1023; and, below, E. B. and E. 958, 986. Followed in numerous cases, e.g. Foreman v. Great Western Ry. Co., 1878, 38 L.T. 853; Ashendon v. London, Brighton, etc. Ry. Co., 1880, 5 Ex. D. 190; Great Western Ry. Co. v. M'Carthy, 1887, 12 A.C. 228; and see Doolan v. Midland Ry. Co., 1877, 2 A.C. 804.
Carriers' Liability - Railway Companies - "Conditions" - "Special Contract" - 11 Geo. 4 and 1 Will. 4, c. 68 - 17 and 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7 - Pleading.
/ //o - " "~" o y [473] WILLIAM PEEK,-Plaintiff; The DIRECTORS, etc. of tie NORTH ^STAFFORDSHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY,-Defendants [July 1862; April 14, July 28, 1863]. [Mews' Dig. iii. 115, 117, 118, 120. S.C. 32 L.J. Q.B. 241; 9 Jur. N.S. 9H; 8 L.T. 768; 11 W.R. 1023; and, below, E. B. and E. 958, 986. Followed in numerous cases, e.g. Foreman v. Great Western By. Co., 1878, 38 L.T. 853; Ashendon v. London, Brighton, etc. By. Co., 1880, 5 Ex. D. 190; Great Western Ry. Co. v. M'Carthy, 1887, 12 A.C. 228; and see Doolan v. Midland By. Co., 1877, 2 A.C. 804.] Carriers' Liability-Bailivay Companies-" Condition's "-" Special Contract "- 11 Geo. 4 and 1 Will. 4, c. 68-17 and 18 Viet. c. 31, s. 7-Pleading. All the parts of the seventh section of the " Railway and Traffic Act, 1854," must be read together, and therefore the Conditions there spoken of as capable of being imposed by railway companies in limitation of their liability as common carriers must not only be, in the opinion of a Court or Judge, just and reasonable, but must also be embodied in a Special Contract in writing, signed by the owner or sender of the goods. The owner of some marble chimney-pieces desired to send them to London. Messages and notes passed between him and the agent of a railway company on the subject of the terms on which they were to be carried. The agent stated, as a Condition, that the company would not be responsible for 1109 X H.L.C., 474 PEEK V. NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE RY. CO. [1862-63] damage to goods sent by the railway, unless their value "was declared and they were insured, the rate of insurance being fixed at 10 per cent, on the declared value. After some delay the agent received a note requesting that the marbles might be forthwith sent to London " not insured; " they were sent, and suffered damage: Held (Diss. Lord Chelmsford), that the Condition thus sought to be imposed by the company was not just and reasonable; that there was not any special contract signed by the parties within the meaning of 17 and 18 Viet. c. 31, s. 7; that the note could not be connected with the other communications so as to constitute the required contract; that the words " not insured " could not be made the subject of explanation by parol evidence; and that they left the rights and liabilities of the parties as at common law. Per Lord Cranworth : The burden of showing that a condition is just and reasonable lies on the railway company. The Defendants pleaded that the goods were carried on a just and reasonable condition, made by them and assented to by the Plaintiff, that they should not be liable for loss or injury unless the goods were insured according to value, and that they were not insured: Per Lord Wensleydale: This is a plea in bar to the whole cause of action in respect of damage, however caused. Simons v. The Great Western Company (18 Com. Ben. 805) confirmed. [474] The declaration in this case stated that the Defendants being common carriers for hire, the Plaintiff delivered to them as such common carriers three marble chimney-pieces to be carried from Stoke-upon-Trent to London, and that the Defendants so negligently carried the same that they were greatly damaged. There were several pleas, of which the 4th and 5th alone require now to be noticed. 4th plea. That the goods in the declaration mentioned were delivered and received by the Defendants, to be carried after the passing of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854,* and under and subject to a certain special contract in that behalf, signed by one George Whittingham, for and on account of one Charles Meigh, who was the person deliver-[475]-ing the said goods to the Defendants for carriage ; whereby it was agreed that the Defendants should not be responsible for the loss of, or injury to, marbles, unless declared and insured according to their value. And that the goods in the declaration mentioned were marbles, and that the same were not, nor was any part of the same declared or insured by the Plaintiff, in the manner provided by the said agreement. 5th plea. That the said goods were delivered and received after the passing of * Section 7. " Every such company as aforesaid shall be liable for the loss of, or for any injury done to any horses, cattle, or other animals, or to any articles, goods, or things, in the receiving, forwarding, or delivering thereof, occasioned by the neglect or default of such company or its servants, notwithstanding any notice, condition, or declaration made and given by such company contrary thereto, or in anywise limiting such liability, every such notice, condition, or declaration, being hereby declared to be null and void. Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the said companies from making such conditions with respect to the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of any of the said animals, articles, goods, or things, as shall be adjudged by the court or judge, before whom any question relating thereto shall be tried, to be just and reasonable." Then followed a second and a third proviso, each of which is immaterial in this case; and the section terminated with a fourth: " Provided also, that no special contract between such company and any other parties respecting the receiving, forwarding, or delivering of any animals, articles, goods, or things as aforesaid, shall be binding upon or affect any such party, unless the same be signed by him, or by the person delivering such animals, articles, goods, or things respectively for carriage: Provided also, that nothing herein contained shall alter or affect the rights, privileges or liabilities of any such company under the said Act of the 11 Geo. 4, and 1 Will. 4, c. 68, with respect to articles of the description mentioned in the said Act." 1110 PEEK V. NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE BY. CO. [1862-63] X H.L.C., 476 the said Act, under and subject to a certain just and reasonable condition made by the Defendants, and assented to by the Plaintiff, with respect to the receiving, forwarding, and delivering the said goods; that is to say, that the Defendants should not, nor would be responsible for the loss or injury to marbles, unless declared and insured according to their value. Issue was taken on these pleas. The case came on for trial before Mr. Justice Erie, at the London sittings, after Hilary Term, 1858, when the following evidence was given: - The Plaintiff, in July 1857, was the owner of the three marble mantel-pieces, then in Staffordshire; a Mr. Meigh, of Hanley, in that county, had instructions from, him to forward the same to London on his behalf by the Defendants' railway. The Defendants had a station at Stoke-upon-Trent, in Staffordshire, and Mr. Meigh was in the habit of delivering goods to the Defendants at that station to be carried to London. On the 30th of June and the 20th of July 1857, printed notices were delivered by the'Defendants to Mr. Meigh, which commenced as follows: - " The North Staffordshire Kailway Company hereby give notice that they will receive, forward, and deliver goods solely subject to the conditions hereunder stated." [476] Among the conditions so referred to was the following, printed on the same paper:- " That the Company shall not be responsible for the loss of, or injury to any marbles, musical instruments, toys, or other articles, which from their brittleness, fragility, delicacy, or liability to ignition, are more than ordinarily hazardous, unless declared and insured according to their value." In July 1857, Mr. Meigh gave directions to a carter of the Defendants to call for the marble chimney-pieces which were then at Mr. Meigh's house, at Shelton, in Staffordshire, and to convey them to the Defendants' station at Stoke; and at the same time he desired the carter to enquire at the station what the insurance would be. The carter fetched the chimney-pieces, and they were placed in the. Defendants' warehouse at Stoke; he also inquired of Mr. Corden, the Defendants' head clerk at Stoke, what would be the insurance of the goods, and was told by him he did not know, unless the value of them was stated; and the carter communicated this od the following day to Mr. Meigh. A day or two afterwards Mr. Corden wrote and sent to Mr. Meigh, referring to the marbles which had been sent, and the message delivered by the carter, and stating that the amount of insurance depended on the value of the marbles, and requesting to know for what amount they were to be insured. No answer was sent to this note. On the 10th of July, Mr. Cor den received the following note from a clerk of Mr. Meigh: - " Please inform us early what is your rate of insurance on marble, and we will give you an answer to your inquiries respecting the packages delivered to you, on receipt of your reply." [477] Mr. Corden went to Mr. Meigh's place of business, saw his son, and told him that until the value of the goods was declared, he could not give him the rate of insurance. Mr. Meigh's son stated that he could not tell the value. On the 16th of July, the following letter was written and sent to the Stoke station, on behalf of Mr. Meigh : - " You will much oblige by sending me the rates of insurance on marbles as written for last week. Oblige me by informing me per bearer." To which the goods manager...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Commissioner for Railways (Nsw) v Quinn
-
Murphy v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company
...J. G. T. (1) Before Lord O'Brien, L.C.J., and Gibson and Wright, JJ. (1) 2 App. Cas. 792. (2) 8 App. Cas. 703. (3) 3 Q. B. D. 195. (4) 10 H. L. Cas. 473. (5) 3 H. & C. (6) 5 Ex. D. 190. (7) 5 H. & N. 867. (1) 26 L. J., C. P. 25, at p. 31; 18 C. B. 805. (2) 1 B. & S. at p. 146. (3) 10 L. R. ......
-
Adler v Dickson (Himalaya.)
... ... ) appeared on behalf of the Appellants (Defendants) ... MR GODFRAY Le QUESNE (instructed by ... ) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Plaintiff) ... LORD JUSTICE DENNING ... Company issued her with a first-class passage ticket by ... of their servants was unreasonable, see Peek v. North Staffs. Railway Company (1863) 10 House ... ...
-
Doolan v Midland Railway Company
...J. DEASY, B., BARRY, J., and DOWSE, B. DOOLAN and THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY. Peek v. The North Staffordshire Railway CompanyENR 10 H. L. C. 473. Branley v. S. E. Railway CompanyENR 12 C. B. (N. S.) 63. The East Anglian Railway Company v. The Eastern Counties Railway CompanyENR 11 C. B. (N......