284 



CARRYING HORSES. 



Compensa- 

 tion paid 

 erroneously 

 to Consignor 

 no answer to 

 action by 

 Consignee. 



Liability of 

 Company 

 ■when acci- 

 dent happens 

 to a Horse in 

 their yard. 



Opinion of 

 Coekbiu'n, 

 C.J. 



could recover from tlie owner of the Horse the reasonable 

 charges which it had paid to the stable-keeper (/). 



After goods have been refused at the Consignee's address, 

 the Carrier becomes an involuntary bailee, and is only 

 bound to act with due and reasonable care and diligence (g). 



It is no answer to an action against Carriers by the 

 owner of goods lost (who was the Consignee), that the 

 Consignor, after the loss of the goods, claimed compen- 

 sation, and that the Carriers, without notice, and believing 

 him to be the owner, paid compensation to him {/>). 



In a case (?) in which the plaintiff sent a Horse of 

 great value to the yard of the defendant's Railway Station 

 at Worcester, for the purpose of its being carried by their 

 Railway : by the direction of a servant of the Company, 

 the plaintiff's groom was leading the Horse to the plat- 

 form, when it was startled by another Horse, and backed 

 upon some sharp iron girders lying on the spot, receiving 

 such an injury that it was necessary to kill it. No 

 declaration of value had been made, nor had any ticket 

 been taken or fare demanded ; the usual practice at that 

 Station being to put the Horse into the box, in which it 

 was to be conveyed in the first instance. The Jury found 

 that the defendants were guilty of negligence in putting 

 the girders where they were, and that there was no 

 negligence on the part of the groom, and found a verdict 

 for the plaintiif for 1,000/. A rule was subsequently 

 obtained, pursuant to leave reserved, calling upon the 

 plaintiff to show cause why the damages should not be 

 reduced to 50/., on the ground that the plaintiff's right to 

 recover was limited to that sum by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, 

 s. 7. The Court differed in opinion, but it was held by 

 the majority that the rule should be made absolute to 

 reduce the damages to 50/. 



It was held by Cockburn, C. J., who dissented from 

 this judgment, that as the negligence complained of was 

 not the negligence of the defendants in their character of 

 Carriers, they were not entitled to the protection of this 

 section ; secondly, if they would have otherwise been 

 entitled to the protection, there was no evidence of their 

 having notified the increase rate of charge as required 



(/■) Great Korthern Railway Co. 

 V. SwafficM, L. R., 9 Ex. 132; 43 

 L.J.,Ex. 89; 30L. T., N. S. 562. 



{g) Heugli v. London and North 

 Western Railway Co., L. R., 5 Ex. 

 51 ; 39 L. J., Ex. 48; 21 L. T., 



N. S. 676. 



[h) Coombs v. Bristol and Exeter 

 Railway Co., 27 L. J., Ex. 269. 



(;') Hodgman v. West Midland 

 Railway Co., 33 L. J., Q. B. 233. 



