MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR NON-DELTVERY. 533 



plaintiff and the purchaser were not affected by the non-delivery at the 

 mill {London and North Western Railway Company ajjpts. v. Bartlett 

 respt.) 



Conskjnee sues for missiny yoods at place of destination. — Where goods 

 are sent by a carrier, the consiynee is e7ititled to recover their value at the 

 place to which they are consiyned, as distinguished from the place at 

 which they were delivered to the carrier {Rice and Another appts. v. 

 Baxendale respt.). 



Damayes in action for non-delivery, measiure of. — In an action ao-ainst 

 carriers for the non-delivery, according to contract, of goods of a 

 marketable kind intended for sale, the jury may give as damayes the 

 difference between the market value on the day the yoods ouyht to have 

 been Irowjht to market, and the day on which they afterwards icere, 

 although no notice be given to the carriers that the goods were intended 

 for market ; for such damages are the natural and immediate conse- 

 quence of the defendant's act. There is no difference in the applica- 

 tion of this rule, between a delay occasioned by the detention of o-oods 

 in the hands of the carrier, and delay necessary for the purpose of 

 restoring goods to a marketable state, when delivered by the carrier in 

 a damaged condition. 



Here the plaintiff sent hops in bags from Kent to London by the 

 defendants' railway, for the purpose of delivery to the vendee, a hop 

 dealer. The hops were detained by the defendants several days, and 

 received some damage by water, and the vendee refused to accept them. 

 The plaintiff dried the hops, and when fit for sale the price had fallen 

 in value. Independently of that, the stained portion of the hops 

 deteriorated the marketable value of the whole, although for the pur- 

 pose of brewing the value of the bulk was unaffected. It was held 

 by the Court of Exchequer that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, as 

 damages from the defendants, the difference in price of the amount of 

 deterioration in market value, and was not confined to the value of the 

 parts actually damaged, although the defendants had no notice that the 

 hops were sent for the purpose of sale and not for use. And per 

 Channell B. : "I think that the doctrine laid down in Hadley v. Baxen- 

 dale (9 Ex. 341, 23 L. J. (N. S.) Ex. 179), by this Court does not apply 

 to this case, and I also agree in the decision of the Court of Queen's 

 Bench in the case of Synced v. Poor (28 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 178), which 

 seems to me to be perfectly distinguishable from this case : in each of 

 the above cases the damages were consequential, but here there was a 

 strict diminution in value. In Smeed v. Poor the Court admitted that 

 the plaintiff was entitled to recover compensation for all heads of 

 damage directly resulting from the non-delivery of the thrashing- 



