North Staffordshire Railway v. Ward, 1867
type: Companies - litigation
North Staffordshire Railway v. Ward
ln this cause Mr. E. Tennant appeared tor the North Staffordshire Railway Company, who were the plaintiffs, and Mr. Sutton appeared for the defendant, Mr. Henry Ward, of Cobridge.
The company claimed the sum of £2 12s. under the following circumstances. The defendant, Mr. Ward, carries business at Cobridge under the name of the Cobridge Oil Company. Some time since a number of empty oil casks were consigned from Stirling by Earp and Co., who were customers of Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward had contracted with the North Staffordshire Railway Company for the conveyance his goods, so that when the casks were delivered in May, 1866, the company's carrier, at Mr. Ward's premises at Cobridge, no charge was made. the monthly statement, however, a charge was made for them, and defendant denied his liability.
His Honour remarked that the defendant's liability rested upon whether the person who had consigned the casks had paid for their conveyance.
Mr. Bold, the goods manager at the Hanley Station, I have evidence of having forwarded the goods the defendant by the carriers, Messrs. Chaplain and Home. He also explained that it was usual for the consignor to pay for the conveyance of empties, and in case they were not paid for, the carrier was instructed to bring them back, if the consignee refused pay.—Francis Smith, the carrier who delivered the empty casks, was called to prove the delivery.
Mr. Sutton, for the defence, contended that the contract was really between the consignors and the Caledonian Railway Company. any damage had been done to the casks the Caledonian Railway Company would have been sued by the consignors. There was contract whatsoever between the defendant and the plaintiffs.
His Honour said that when the goods passed over the plaintiffs' line there was, to speak, a new contract between them and the defendant. Mr. Sutton held that if the casks had been damaged the defendant or the consignors would have had no remedy against the North Staffordshire Railway Company.
His Honour said that if the goods had been damaged the consignors would have had the right of action against the Caledonian Railway Company, and not the North Staffordshire Railway Company, so that he thought Mr, Ward was not responsible for the cost of freight, as he would have had no remedy against either Company.
Mr. Tennant said that the North Staffordshire Railway Company had paid a portion of the money through the clearing-house to the Caledonian Railway Company. The firm who had consigned the casks had not prepaid the carriage, and had since become bankrupts.
Mr. Ward, in his evidence, stated that he was not present when the casks were delivered by the carrier, or should have declined to receive them on being told that the carriage had not been prepaid. After some further argument, Mr. Tennant suggested that his Honour should take time to consider the verdict, but his Honour said that had doubt, and he nonsuited the plaintiffs.
The Staffordshire Sentinel and Commercial & General Advertiser, 17th August 1867