Sheridan v The Midland Great Western Railway (Ireland) Company

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date20 July 1888
Date20 July 1888
CourtChancery Division (Ireland)

Q. B. Div.

Appeal.

In the Queen's Bench Division, before SIR MICHAEL MORRIS, C.J., and O'BRIEN, JOHNSON, and GIBSON, JJ.

SHERIDAN
and

THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) COMPANY

Walker v. The Great Western Railway Co.ELR L. R. 2 Exch. 228.

The Kirkstall Brewery Co. v. The Furness Railway Co.ELR L. R. 9 Q. B. 468.

Moore v. The Metropolitan Railway Co.ELR L. R. 8 Q. B. 36.

Goff v. Great Northern Railway Co.ENR 3 E. & E. 672.

Malpas v. The London & South-Western Railway Co.ELR L. R. 1 C. P. 336.

Moore v. The Metropolitan Railway Co.UNK 10 L. R. Ir. 95.

Gill v. The Manchester Railway Co.ELR L. R. 8 Q. B. 186.

Corrigan v. The Great Northern and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co.UNK 6 L. R. Ir. 90.

M'Nally v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co.UNK 8 L. R. Ir. 81.

The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Co., App., Brown, Resp.ELR 8 App. Cas. 703.

Phillips v. ClarkENR 2 C. B. (N. S.) 156.

Peek v. The North Stafford Railway Co. 10 H. L. Cas. 473.

Ruddy v. The Midland Great Western Railway Co.UNK 8. L. R. Ir. 224.

Allday v. Great Western Railway Co.ENR 5 B. & S. 903.

Rooth v. The North-Eastern Railway Co.ELR L. R. 2 Exch. 173.

Dickson v. The Great Northern Railway Co. 18 Q. B. Dov. 176.

The Great Western Railway Company v. M'CarthyELR 12 App. Cas. 218.

Moore v. The Great Northern Railway CompnayUNK 10 L. R. Ir. 95.

M'Carthy's CaseELR 12 App. Cas. 218.

Ruddy's CaseUNK 8 L. R. Ir. 224.

Moore's CaseUNK 10 L. R. Ir. 95.

Corrigan's CaseUNK 6 L. R. Ir. 90.

M'Nally's CaseUNK 8 L. R. Ir. 81.

Beal's CaseENR 3 H. & C. 337.

Brown's CaseELR 8 App. Cas. 703.

Lewis' CaseENR 5 H. & N. 867.

Dickson's CaseELR 18 Q. B. Div. 176.

Simons' CaseENR 18 C. B. 805.

Peek's Case 10 H. L. Cas. At p. 576.

Harrison's CaseENR 2 B. & S. 170.

Dickson's CaseELR 18 Q. B. Div. at p. 181.

Allday's CaseENR 5 B. & S. 503.

Corrigan's CaseUNK 6 L. R. Ir. 90.

M'Carthy's CaseELR 12 App. Cas. 218, 224.

M'Carthy's v. Great Western Railway Co.ELR 12 App. Cas. 218.

Ashenden v. Brighton Railway Co. 5 Ex. Div. 190.

Dickson v. Great Northern Railway Co.ELR 18 Q. B. Div. 176.

Peek v. North Staffordshire Railway Co. 10 H. L. Cas. 473.

Great Western Railway Co. v. M'CarthyELR 12 App. Cas. 218.

Ashenden v. London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co. 5 Exch. Div. 190.

Cutler v. North London Railway Co.ELR 19 Q. B. Div. 64.

Beal v. South Devon Railway Co.ENR 3 H. & C. 337.

Lewis v. Great Western Railway Co.ELR 3 Q. B. Div. 195.

Harrison v. London and Brighton Railway Co.ENR 2 B. & S. 122.

Simons v. Great Western Railway Co.ENR 18 C. B. 805.

Moore's CaseUNK 10 L. R. Ir. 95.

Phillips v. ClarkeUNK 26 L. J., C. P. 168.

Ashenden's Case 5 Exch. Div. 190.

Dickson's CaseELR 18 Q. B. Div. 176.

Moore v. Great Northern Railway Co.UNK 10 L. R. Ir. 95.

Carriers — Railway Company — Reasonableness of conditions — Carriage of cattle — Evidence — Onus of proof — Written contract — Authority of stationmaster — Collateral contract —

146 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). Q. B. Div. SHERIDAN V. THE MIDLAND GREAT WESININ 1888. RAILWAY (IRELAND) COMPANY (1). Feb. 21, 22. May 10. Carriers-Railway Company -Reasonableness of conditions-Carriage of Appeal. cattle-Evidence-Onus of proof-Written contract-Authority of station 1888. master-Collateral contract-The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. Cattle were carried by a Railway Company under a special contract, signed by the consignor, which stated that the Company had two rates for the conÂveyance of cattle-one the ordinary rate, when they took the ordinary liability of a carrier ; the other a reduced rate-that these cattle were to be carried at the reduced rate, the Company to be free from all liability (including liability for loss, injury, delay), unless such injury or delay should be occasioned by the intentional and wilful neglect or misconduct of the Company's servants. The stationmaster at the station where the cattle were consigned stated that the train in which they were to be carried would arrive at D. at a certain hour. The train arrived late; some of the cattle had died and others were seriously injured, and the plaintiff was thereby prevented from bringing them to P. in time for a market there. No attempt was made by the plaintiff to prove that the injuries or delay were caused by the intentional and wilful neglect or misÂconduct of the Company's servants. None of the cattle were over the value of £15. The contract note contained (among others) the following conditions : " 2. The Company will not in any case be responsible for any loss or injury to any horses, cattle, or other animals, in the receiving, forwarding, or deliverÂing, if such loss or injury be occasioned by the kicking, plunging, or restiveÂness of the animal. " 5. The Company will in no case be responsible for any injury sustained by reason of the overcrowding of wagons, or by such overcrowding and delay in transit, where such overcrowding takes place at the instance of the owner or sender, or person in charge of animals. A wagon will be deemed overcrowded when the number of animals forwarded by it exceed the number allowed by the printed regulations of the Company. "6. The Company will in no case be responsible for the despatch, transmission, or delivery of horses or other animals in time for any particular race meeting, show, market, or fair, or to suit the starting of boats or trains, or for the non-arrival of trains at any particular time, unless a written undertaking shall be given by an authorized servant of the Company, in respect of the time of the Q. B. Dm. despatch, transmission, or delivery of such horses or other animals. 1888. " 7. They will in no case be responsible for any greater value of any cattle SE:mu:DAN or other animals than the sums mentioned in the Railway and Canal Traffic v. M. G. W. Act, 1854, viz. :-For any neat cattle, £15 ; for any sheep, pigs, or other 114.mwty co. animals, £2-unless, at the time of delivery to the Company, the person sendÂing or delivering the same shall declare it of higher value, in which case the Company will charge in addition five per cent. on excess of value so declared." The jury before whom the case was tried found that the ordinary rate (56s. a wagon) was unreasonable ; that the alternative was unreasonable ; and assessed the damages sustained by the plaintiff at £100 :- Held, by the Court of Appeal (affirming the decision of the Queen's Bench Division, from which Johnson, J., had dissented as to the 5th condition), that all the conditions were reasonable ; that the ordinary rate was reasonable ; and that the reasonableness of the alternative was a question for the Judge and not for the jury. AcrIoN for damages for injuries sustained in carrying cattle. The case was tried before Mr. Justice Andrews and a special jury of the city of Dublin, on the 23rd and 24th June, 1887. The action was-1st, for not carrying the plaintiff's cattle from Carrick-on-Shannon to Dublin within a reasonable time ; 2ndly, for negligence in the carriage of them ; 3rdly, for not delivering them in Dublin in a stipulated time ; and 4thly, for not delivering them at Perth in time for a particular market. The statement of defence, so far as material to the present report, relied on the contract note signed by the plaintiff, and under which the cattle were carried. At Carrick-on-Shannon station the plaintiff signed a contract note for the carriage of eighty-six head of cattle in eight wagons on Tuesday the 19th October, 1886, so as to reach Perth on the following Friday. The rate per wagon was 47s. The ordinary rate was 56s. per wagon. The Parliamentary rate is 33s. 4d per head. The cattle were placed in the trucks about 11 p.m., and the freight was afterwards paid by the plaintiff, to whom the stationÂmaster stated that the cattle would be brought so as to reach Dublin at eight o'clock next morning, and not later than 11.15 a.m. The cattle did not arrive until 4.45 p.m., in very bad condition, and three of them were dead. They did not reach Glasgow until Friday, when, being late for market and injured in the transit, they were 148 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. Q. B. Div. sold for £751 18s. 8d., though they were bought for £803 17s. 6d. 1888. A copy of the contract note, signed by the plaintiff, is printed on Sr' the opposite page. v. M. 43* W. His Lordship left the following questions to the jury :- RAILWAY 1. Was the ordinary rate, 56s. per wagon, a reasonable rate from Carrick-on-Shannon to Dublin, the Company at that rate accepting carriers' ordinary liability. Answer-No. 2. Was the alternative offered to the plaintiff of sending at the ordinary rate at carriers' risk a reasonable alternative. Answer-No. 3. Assuming the Company to be liable to the plaintiff for the injury the cattle sustained, what damages do you assess. Answer -£100. His Lordship declined to submit a question of a collateral contract to the jury. His Lordship did not enter judgment for either party, leaving both to move for judgment. Conditional orders were obtained by the plaintiff to enter judgÂment for £100, or for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, and by the defendants to enter judgment for them, or for a new trial on the grounds of misdirection and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, against which cause was shown by the respective parties. Serjeant Hemphill, Q. C. (with him Samuels), for the plaintiff : The first question which presents itself for argument is whether there was a new contract or a substituted contract entered into by the stationmaster that the cattle would arrive in the forenoon in time : Walker v. The Great Western Railway Co. (1) ; The Kirk-stall Brewery Co. v. The Furness Railway Co. (2) ; Moore v. The Metropolitan Railway Co. (3) ; Goff v. Great Northern Railway Co. (4) ; Malpas v. The London South- Western Railway Co. (5); These cases show that the stationmaster had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Murphy v Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Company
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 18 January 1902
    ... ... To be valid I think the condition should be differently framed. It is conceded that reasonableness must be determined as at the date of the contract, and without regard to the event: Sheridan's Case ( 2 ). 3. The last head of objection was founded on the insufficiency of the time allowed. The defendants contended that the condition was covered by Lewis' Case ( 3 ). That decision was given in 1860, three years before Peek's Case ( 4 ) in the House of Lords settled the law. The ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT