Irvine v Midland Reilway Company, Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 28 January 1880
• Date: 28 January 1880
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Ex. Div.

Before FITZGERALD and DOWSE, BB.

IRVINE

and

THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) COMPANY Before FITZGERALD AND DOWSE, BB.

Wilson v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 9 C. B. (N. S. ) 632.

Collard v. The South-Eastern Railway CompanyENR 7 H. & N. 79.

Featherston v. WilkinsonELR L. R. 8 Exch. 122.

O'Hanlon v. The great Western Railway CompanyENR 6 B. & S. 484.

Simpson v. The London and Great Western Railway Company 1 Q. B. 274.

Hadley v. BaxendaleENR 9 Ex. 341.

Horne v. The Midland Railway Company 1 Q. B. 274.

Waller v. The Midland great Western Railway (Ireland) CompanyUNK 4 L. R. Ir. 376.

Boyd v. FittUNK 14 Ir. C. L. R. 43.

Le Balanche v. London and North-Western Railway Company. 1 C. P. Div. 286.

Pickford v. The Grand Junction Railway CompanyENR 8 M. & W. 372.

Crouch v. The London and North-Western Railway CompanyENR 14 C. B. 255.

Hunter v. FryENR 2 B. & Ald. 421.

British Columbia Saw Mills v. Nettleship L. R. 3C. P. 499.

Walton v. FothergillENR 7 Car. & P. 392.

Featherston v. WilkinsonELR L. R. 8 Ex. 122.

Hamlin v. The Great Northern Railway CompanyENR 1 H. & N. 408.

Hadley v. BaxendaleENR 9 Ex. 341.

Prior v. Wilson 8 W. R. 260.

Le Blanche v. The London and North-Western Railway Company 1 C. P. Div. 286.

Horne v. The Midland Railway CompanyELR L. R. 8 C. P. 131.

Hobbs v. London and Sought-Western Railway ComanyELR L. R. 10 Q. B. 111.

Hadley v. BaxendaleENR 9 Ex. 341.

Carriers Railway Company Breach of contract Loss directly attributable to breach Failure to provide particular mode of carriage for goods at stipulated rate of freight Reasonableness of Plaintiff's conduct upon breach Damages.

VOL. VI.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. Beard (1), the analogous clause being " so long as I (the lessor) am in possession of the premises myself," which I hold is tantamount to a proviso that the lease should continue for the lessee's life, proÂÂvided the lessor's estate did not sooner determine. The cases of King's Leasehold Estates (2) and Kusel v. Watson (3), show that a greater interest than a tenancy from year to year was created by the instrument in this case ; and I do not see that effect can be given to the intention of the parties, as evidenced by that instruÂÂment, otherwise than by holding that it created a term for the lessee's life, determinable as before mentioned, and that such interest having now determined, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover. Solicitor for the Plaintiffs : A. Samuels. Solicitor for the Defendant : B. G. Pilkington. IRVINE v. THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAIL WAY (IRELAND) COMPANY (4). Carriers-Railway Company-Breach of contract-Loss directly attributable to breach-Failure to provide particular mode of carriage for goods at stipulated rate of freight-Reasonableness of Plaintiff's conduct upon breach-Damages. The Defendants, a Railway Company, contracted with the Plaintiff to proÂÂvide within a reasonable time a particular description of large wagons, at a specified rate of freight per wagon, for the carriage of a quantity of hay from a station on their line to G., a town about twenty-five miles distant, where the hay was intended for sale. Five tons were delivered to the Defendants, but carried by them in smaller wagons, for which they charged and were paid the same rate per wagon, thus increasing the cost of carriage per ton. They did not provide wagons of the description agreed for, and thus (as it was conceded) committed a breach of their contract. The Plaintiff did not deliver to them for conveyance the rest of the hay, which he kept for some time, and, after notice to the Company, sold and disposed of under cost price. In an action for breach of the contract, in which the Defendants paid. into Court sufficient to (1) 2 Ex. Div. 30. (4) Before Frrznnita) and Down, (2) L. E. 16 Eq. 521. BB. (3) 11 Ch. Div. 129. 56 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. E. I. Ex. Div. cover the extra cost of carriage of the five tons, the jury, in answer to a ques 1879. tion submitted to them by the learned Judge, notwithstanding an objection by E IN the Defendants, found that the Plaintiff acted in a reasonable manner in keep- IRV v. ing and disposing of the residue of the hay as he did ; and the learned Judge MIDLAND directed a verdict for him for the profits which the jury found would have been GT.WESTERN if realised, f the hay had been conveyed 'pursuant to contract, by sales at G. at Ri (IRELAND) the market prices, in addition to the actual loss which the Plaintiff had incurred COMPANY. upon the sale and disposal of the residue:- Held, a misdirection; and that the question as to the reasonableness of the Plaintiff's conduct in keeping, selling and disposing of the residue of the hay ought not to have been submitted to the jury, inasmuch as the loss thereby sustained was not directly attributable to the breach of contract, and was thereÂÂfore a loss which the Defendants were not liable to compensate. Held, further, that if the hay had been delivered to the Defendants for carÂÂriage, or had been otherwise conveyed in a reasonable manner to its destination, the proper measure of damages would have been the extra cost of conveyance, and that the only damages which the Plaintiff could recover was the extra cost in respect of the five tons actually delivered and conveyed, such being the only loss sustained by him directly attributable to the Defendants' breach of conÂÂtract. The rule in Hadley V. Baxendale (9 Exch. 341) considered. AcrioN for breach of contract in not carrying a certain quanÂÂtity of hay from Woodlawn to the town of Galway. The case was tried. before Harrison, J., and a special jury at the Summer Assizes, 1879, for the County of Galway. At the trial, by leave of the learned Judge, the statement of claim was amended, and. the Defendants lodged. 10 in Court. Upon the findings of the jury as to questions submitted to them, the learned Judge directed. a verdict for the Plaintiff for 120 18s. 3d. above the sum paid into Court, but reserved liberty to the Defendants to move to have the verdict changed into a verdict for them, or reduced to such amount as the Court might direct, and also reserved for the Court the question how the costs of the action, or any part thereof, should be borne in. case the verdict and judgment should be entered for the Defendants, or the verdict reduced below the sum of 20, having regard to the amendments in the pleadings at the trial. The statement of claim as amended, and the material facts, are fully stated in the judgment of FITZGERALD, B. A conditional order having been obtained on behalf of the DeÂÂfendants, pursuant to the leave reserved :- Va. VI.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. 57 Beytagh, Q. C., Le Poer Trench, and. Bird, for the Plaintiff, .Ex. Div. showed cause :- 1879. A Plaintiff in a case of this kind is entitled to recover the IRVINE difference between the selling value of the goods, had they been MIDLAND delivered in proper time, and their value at the time when they GT R. W E:TALyR N were actually delivered : Wilson v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire (IRELAND) Railway Company (1) ; Collard v. The South-Eastern Railway Com- COM . PANY pany (2). Where the Defendants break their contract to carry goods, and the Plaintiff has to pay an additional freight, such payment has been held as primd facie evidence of damage...