Wise v The Great Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1856 |
| Date | 30 April 1856 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1119
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. Ex. 258; 4 W. R. 551.
[63] wise r. the great western eailway company April 30, 1856.-A horse was sent by railway directed to the owner at Eton The sender signed a document in the following terms Mr. Wise paid for one horse 12s. Gd , New-bury to Windsor Notice The directors will not be answerable for damage to any horses conveyed by this railway.-The hoise ai lived safe at the Windsor station, but the owner not appearing to claim it, it was forgotten and left tied up in a hmse box in an exposed situation for twenty-four hoars, and was seriously injured by such neglect -Held, that the Company were not responsible for the injury done to the horse [S. C. 25 L. J. Ex. 258 ; 4 W. E 551.] The declaration stated that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendants, caused to be delivered to the defendants, and they accepted of him a horse of the plaintiff, to be taken care of and safely and securely earned and conveyed by the defendants fiom Newbury to Windsor, and there, to wit at Windsor, to be safely and securely delivered by the defendants for the plaintiff, within a leasonable time then next following, for reward to the defendants in that behalf, and although a reasonable time for the carriage and conveyance of the said horse had elapsed, yet the defendants made default, &c., and by and through such default the horse was not delivered, &c. . alleging special damage Plea: stating the special terms of the contract Replication that there was no contract signed pursuant to 17 & 18 Viet. c. 31, s. 7. Rejoinder travel sing the replication At the trial before Pollock, C B , at the Middlesex sittings after last Michaelmas Term, it appeared that the horse, which had been lured from the plaintiff, a jobmaster residing at Eton, by one Johnson, was sent by Johnson from the Newbury station, on Saturday, the 31st of March, directed to the plaintiff, at Eton The directions were written on labels and tied, one to the budle, the other to the saddle The horse was sent by the train leaving Newbury at forty minutes past two, and should have been delivered at the plaintiff's stables, at Eton, at five o'clock the same afternoon It drd not arrive, and the plaintrff had no information whatever as to its having been sent until the next morning, when he received the following letter, by post, from Johnson "Emborne March 31 Mr. Wise. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McManus v Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company
...[Martin, B., referred to Pardmgton v. The South Wales Railway Company (\ H. & N. 39-2), and Wise v The Great Western Raihvay Ctrnipmiy (1 H & N. 63).] In those cases the terms of the [698J conditions were not so extensive as in the present case. They also referred to White v. The Great West......
-
Peek against The North Staffordshire Railway Company
...7 point to different forms of contract between the carrier and the owner of the goods. Again, in Wise v. Great Western Railway Company (1 H. & N. 63), which was an action against the defendants, as carriers, for negligence in the conveyance of a horse, the Court held a special contract betw......
-
Gregory v The West Midland Railway Company
...in writing, signed by the owner or sender of the goods. The first case on the subject was Wise v. The Great Western Railway Company (1 H. & N. 63); but that case, and also Hattison v. The London,, Bnykton iwul Smith Coast Railway Company (2 B. & S 122, 152), must be regarded as overruled , ......
-
White v The Great Western Railway Company
...and The London and North Western Railway Company, App., Dunham, Resp., 18 C. B. 805, 826; Wise v. The Great Western Railway Company, 1 Hurlst. & N. 63; Pardington v. The South Wales Railway Company, I Hurlst. & N". 392, 16 L. J. Exch. 105. In this latter case, Bramwell, B., says : "I think ......