CARRYING HORSES. 



269 



give notice to tte consignor of the refusal of the consignee 

 to receive goods, but carriers are merely bound to do what 

 is reasonable, under the particular circumstances of each 

 case (d). However, Bramwell, B., said in the case of 

 Hudson V. Baxendale {d), that "the judgment of the 

 majority of the Court " (from which however he dissented) 

 " in Crouch v. Great Western Railway Company (e) seemed 

 to show that it was the duty of the carrier to communicate 

 with the consignor." 



If the consignee makes default in receiving the goods 

 the carrier is entitled to recover from him the expenses 

 reasonably incurred in taking care of the goods. A person 

 sent a horse by railway, consigned to himself at a station 

 on the line, and paid the fare. When the horse arrived 

 at the station there was no one on his behalf to receive it, 

 and the railway company therefore placed it with a livery 

 stable-keeper ; and it was held that the company could 

 recover from the 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 dili- 

 gence {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 compensa- 

 tion, and that the carriers, without notice, and believing 

 him to be the owner, paid compensation to him (A). 



In a case («) in which the plaintiff sent a horse of great 

 value to the yard of the defendants' railway station at 

 Worcester, for the purpose of its being carried by their 

 railway ; and 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 declara- 

 tion of value had been made, nor had any ticket been 

 taken or fare demanded ; the usual practice at that station 



consigQee s 

 refusal to 

 consimor. 



Effect of 



consignee's 



refusal. 



Compensa- 

 tion paid 

 erroneously 

 to consignor 

 no answer to 

 action by 

 consignee. 



Liability of 

 company 

 when accident 

 happens to a 

 horse in their 

 yard. 



(rf) Suisany. Baxendale, Tl L. J., 

 Ex. 93. 



(«) Crotich v. Great Western Rail. 

 Co., 26 L. J., Ex. 418. 



(/) Oreat Northern Rail. Co. v. 

 SwaffieUi L. E., 9 Ex. 132 ; 43 L. J. 

 Ex. 89; SOL. T., N. S. 562. 



[g] Reugh v. London and North 



Western Mail. Co., L. E., 5 Ex. 51 ; 

 39 L. J., Ex. 48; 21 L. T., N". S. 

 676. 



(A) Coombs T. Bristol and Exeter 

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



(») Sodgmany. West Midland Rail. 

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



