272 



CARRYING HORSES. 



General No- 

 tices invalid. 



Condition 



limiting 



Liability. 



"Condition" 

 and ' ' Special 

 Contract' ' 

 synonymous 

 terms. 



Yict. c. 31, s. 7, that tlie marbles were delivered to be car- 

 ried by tbem subject to a certain Special Contract, whereby 

 it was agreed that they should not be responsible for the 

 loss of or injury to marbles unless declared and insured 

 according to their value, and that the same were not nor 

 was any part thereof so declared or insured ; and by their 

 fifth plea, that the marbles were delivered and received on 

 the above Condition ; that such Condition, made by the 

 defendants, and assented to by the plaintiff, was a just and 

 reasonable Condition. 



It having been decided by the Exchequer Chamber (re- 

 versing the judgment of the Queen's Bench) that the de- 

 fendants were entitled to the verdict on these pleas, the 

 House of Lords reversed that decision, and affirmed the 

 judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, holding that no 

 Greneral Notice given by a Railway Company is valid in 

 law for the purpose of limiting the Common Law liability 

 of the Company as Carriers ; but that such Common Law 

 liability may be limited by such Conditions as the Court or 

 Judge shall determine to be just and reasonable. 



The majority of the Lords present were of opinion that 

 the Condition above cited was neither just nor reasonable, 

 as the effect of such a Condition would be to exempt the 

 Company from responsibility for injury however caused, 

 whether by their own negligence, or even by fraud or 

 dishonesty on the part of theii' servants ; and that the letter 

 of the 1st of August, 1857, did not constitute a Special 

 Contract in writing, the words " not insured " being in- 

 sufficient, either expressly or by reference, to embody the 

 Condition itself into the letter. 



It was held also by the Lord Chancellor (Lord West- 

 bury) and by Lord Wensleydale, Lord Cranworth and 

 Lord Chelmsford dissenting, that the Conditions must be 

 embodied in a Special Contract in writing, to be signed 

 by the owner or person delivering the goods (?"). This 

 question therefore remains as decided by M^JIanns y. Lanca- 

 shire and YorJcs/iire Raihcay Company (/r), that in order to 

 give this section (/) its intended extent of remedy, it must 

 be construed, in accordance with the approved principle of 

 interpretation, with reference to the state of the law when 

 the Statute was passed. Before that time, every case in 

 which a special limited liability was substituted for the 



(j) See also Lewis v. Great Western 

 Hailwai/ Co., L.R., 3Q.B.D. 195. 

 (A') M^Mainis v. Lancashire and 



Yorkshire Raihcay Co. (Ex. Cli.) 

 4 H. & K 349. 



(/) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7. 



