9. Against the Defendant for not delivering up a Ship's Register when required. (8)

Wiley v. Crawford, 29 L. J. Q. B. 244; 30 L. J. Q. B. 319; [1 B. & S. 253.]

BANK OF ENGLAND - BANKERS. (1)

1. Against the Bank of England for not transferring Stock to the Plaintiff's Vendee and Pleas.

Stracey v. Bank of England, 6 Bing. 754; Henley v. Mayor of Lyme, 5 Bing. 91-108; Sutton v. Bank of England, 1 C. & P 193; Foster v. Bank of England, 15 L. J. Q. B. 212; Coles v. Bank of England, 10 Ad. & E. 437; Partridge v. Bank of England, 15 L. J. Q. B. 395.

2. Against the East India Company for not transferring Stock. Gregory v. East India Company, 7 Q. B. 199; 14 L. J. Q. B. 226. (u)

3. For not providing for and honoring Customer's Check.
Cumming v. Shaw, 5 H. & N. 95; 29 L. J. Ex. 129. (x)

BOOKING-OFFICE KEEPER.

OBS. The duty of a booking-office keeper is to deliver to a carrier, and evidence must be given showing specifically a breach of that duty, and it is not sufficient to prove that the goods never reached their destination or were accounted for. Gilbart v. Dale, 5 Ad. & E. 543, where see a form.

BRIBERY. See post, "Parliament."

CARELESSNESS. See post, "Negligence."

CARRIAGES, COLLISION OF. See post, "Negligence."

(s) See merchant shipping act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 50.

(t) If the Bank of England refuse to transfer stock, an action may be maintained against them. Henley v. Mayor of Lyme, 5 Bing. 108. So, if the Bank of England make unreasonable delay in the passing of a power of attorney to transfer stock, an action lies against them. Sutton v. Bank of England, 1 C. & P. 193. See a form for not paying dividends, Foster v. The Bank of

England, [8 Q. B. 689;] 15 L. J. Q. B. 213. See, also, Coles v. The Bank of England, 10 Ad. & E. 437; Partridge v. The Bank of England, 13 L. J. Q. B. 281; 15 L. J. Q. B. 395; Sloman v. The Bank of England, 14 L. J. Ch. 226. See ante, 70; and Grant on Bankers.

(u) This declaration was held bad for not averring the name of the proposed transferee.

(x) Ante, pt. 1, 70, note (x).

CARRIERS OF GOODS BY LAND.

OBS. See ante, part 1, 94. Carriers may be sued for the consequences of their neglect in regard to the carriage or delivery of goods either in contract or tort. [Gray J. in Medfield v. Boston, Hartford & Erie R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 555.] The leading distinction between contract and tort as regards carriers is, that in contract a promise to perform the duty required by the express or implied contract of the parties is laid in the declaration. In tort the declaration does not charge a promise, but after stating the delivery to defendant as a common carrier, alleges the breach of duty as in contract. The forms in contract may, therefore, be readily applied to tort. [See 1 Chitty Pl. 397399; Medfield . Boston, Hartford & Erie R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 552, 554

557.

1. Against a Carrier on his Common Law Liability, for losing

Goods. (y)

For that the defendant was a common carrier (2) of goods for hire from A. to B., and the plaintiff delivered to the defendant certain goods, and the defendant received the same as such carrier to be carried from A. to B. and there delivered by the defendant for the plaintiff for reward in that behalf; yet the defendant did not safely and securely, and within a reasonable time, carry and deliver the said goods for the plaintiff, and the said goods were lost to the defendant. (a)

2. Against a Common Carrier for Injury to Goods. (b)

For that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, and the defendant received from the plaintiff certain goods to be carried by the defendants as common carriers from A. to B. and there delivered for the plaintiff for reward to the defendant; yet the defendants so negligently carried the same, that by means thereof the said goods were damaged and spoiled.

3. Against a Railway Company for negligently injuring Cattle carried under Contract. (c)

Carr v. The Lancashire & Yorkshire Ry. Co. 21 L. J. Ex. 261.

(y) See forms, Coombs v. Bristol & Exeter Ry. Co. 27 L. J. Ex. 269; 3 H. & N. 1; Metcalfe v. London, Brighton & South Coast Ry. Co. 4 C. B. N. S. 307; 27 L. J. C. P. 205; [Sanquer". London & South Western Ry. Co. 16 C. B. 163; Simons v. Great Western Ry. Co. 2 C. B. N. S. 620; Harrison v. London & Brighton Ry. Co. 2 B. & S. 122.] Form against a carrier from the London terminus of a railway for the loss of goods delivered to the railway company at B. Coats v. Chaplin, 3 Q. B. 483.

(z) As to who are common carriers, see ante, pt. 1, p. 99, note (b).

(a) If there be any reason to suppose that the goods were lost by a misdelivery through the wilful negligence of the defendant, a count in trover should be added. Wyld v. Pickford, 8 M. & W. 443; 10 L. J. Ex. 382; Stephenson v. Hart, 4 Bing. 476

See Dev

ereux v. Baillay, 2 B. & Ald. 702; [1 Chitty Pl. 174, and notes, 180.]

(b) Form, Behrens v. Great Northern Ry.

Co. 30 L. J. Ex. 153; affirmed, 31 L. J. Ex. 299; [6 H. & N. 366; 7 Ib. 950.] The plaintiff is entitled to recover the fall in price and deterioration in market value, and is not confined to the parts actually damaged. Collard v. South Eastern Ry. Co. 30 L. J. Ex. 394; [7 H. & N. 79,] where see a form. [See 1 Chitty Contr. (11th Am. ed.) 725; 2 Ib. 1325, note (h).]

(c) As to the liability of railway carriers of cattle, see ante, pt. 1, 95, 96, Obs.; Harrison v. London & Brighton Ry. Co. 31 L. J. Ex. 113, in error; [2 B. & S. 122, 152;] Hodgman v. The West Midland Ry. Co. 33 L. J. Q. B. 233; 35 Ib. Q. B. 85; [5 B. & S. 173; 6 B. & S. 560;] Gregory v. West Midland Ry. Co. 35 L. J. Ex. 155; [2 H. & C. 944;] Allday v. Great Western Ry. Co. 34 L. J. Q. B. 5; [5 B. & S. 903 ;] Robinson v. South Western Ry. Co. 34 L. J. C. P. 234; Robinson v. Great Western Ry. Co. 35 L. J. C. P. 120; [19 C. B. N. S. 51; 1 Chitty Contr. (11th Am. ed.) 689, note (a), 721, 722; Rix

[3a. Against a Company for Negligence in receiving a Horse.

Hodgman v. West Midland Ry. Co. 33 L. J. Q. B. 233.]

4. Against a Common Carrier for not delivering Goods within a Reasonable Time. (d)

For that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, then being a common carrier of goods for hire, and the defendant received from the plaintiff goods of the plaintiff, to be carried by the defendant as such common carrier from A. to B. and there to be delivered by the defendant for the plaintiff for reward to the defendant; yet the defendant neglected to deliver the same within a reasonable time, whereby the plaintiff was deprived of the use of the same, and they were of much less value.

5. Against a Carrier for not carrying and delivering Goods in Time for a Certain Market. (e)

For that the defendant was a common carrier of goods for hire, and the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, and the defendant received from the plaintiff as such carrier certain goods to be carried from A. to B. and there delivered by the defendant for the plaintiff in time for the market on the day of -9 A. D. for reward to the defendant; yet the defendant did not deliver the said goods for the plaintiff in time for the said market, whereby the plaintiff lost the profits that he would have otherwise have made, and the said goods were deteriorated and injured, and greatly diminished in value, and the plaintiff was put to cost in attending the said market to sell the said goods.

6. Against a Carrier for not taking care of Goods after the Consignee had refused to accept them.

Hudson v. Baxendale, 2 H. & N. 575; 27 L. J. Ex. 93. (ƒ)

7. Against a Common Carrier for refusing to carry Goods. For that the defendant was a common carrier of goods for hire from A. to B., and the plaintiff tendered at the defendant's place of business at a proper

ford v. Smith, 52 N. H. 355, 363, and cases cited; Lake Shore & Michigan Southern &c. R. R. Co. v. Perkins, 25 Mich. 329; Michigan Southern & Northern Indiana R. R. v. McDonogh, 21 Mich. 165; Clarke v. Rochester & Syracuse R. R. Co. 14 N. Y. 570; Hull v. Renfro, 3 Metc. (Ky.) 51; Smith v. N. H. & N. R. R. Co. 12 Allen, 531; American Express Co. v. Sands, 55 Penn. St. 140; Louisville &c. R. R. Co. v. Hedger, 13 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 145, and note ad finem; Blower v. G. W. R. R. Co. L. R. 7 C. P. 655; McCancer. London & N. W. Ry. Co. 7 H. & N. 477; S. C. 3 H. & C. 343.]

(d) Forms, Wise v. The Great Western Ry. Co. 25 L. J. Ex. 258; 1 H. & N. 63; Raphael v. Pickford, 5 M. & G. 551. See, also, ante, pt. 1, p. 103, form 10, and notes. And as to duty to carry within a reasona

ble time, see Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 35 L. J. C. P. 210; [L. R. 1 C. P. 385; ante, 103, note (h).]

(e) This form is in contract, and was accidentally omitted from part 1. Other forms, Pickford v. The Grand Junction Ry. Co. 12 M. & W. 766; Walker v. York & North Midland Ry. Co. 23 L. J. Q. B. 73; [2 El. & Bl. 750;] White v. Great Western Ry. Co. 2 C. B. N. S. 7; 26 L. J. C. P. 158; [Hughes v. Great Western Ry. Co. 14 C. B. 637.]

(f) There is not any rule of law compelling the carrier to give notice to the consignor that the consignee refuses to receive the goods. He is merely bound to do what is reasonable in the particular circumstances. Hudson v. Baxendale, 2 H. & N. 575; 27 L. J. Ex. 93; [ante, 107, note (p).]

time certain goods of the plaintiff to be carried by the defendant, (g) for reward, from A. to B., and was then ready and willing, and offered to pay to the defendant proper reward in that behalf; yet the defendant, although he had the means of carrying the said goods, would not receive and carry the same.

[7a. For refusing to carry a Horse unless the Value was declared and insured.

Robinson v. South Western Ry. Co. 19 C. B. N. S. 51. See Cranch v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 11 Ex. 742.]

1. Against a Ship-owner for the Loss of Goods. (h)

For that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, who received the same, certain goods to be carried in a ship of the defendant from A. to B. and there delivered to the plaintiff, for freight payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, certain perils and casualties only excepted; yet the defendant, although not prevented by any of the said excepted perils and casualties, and a reasonable time in that behalf elapsed, did not carry and deliver the said goods as aforesaid, and the same were lost to the plaintiff.

2. Against a Ship-owner for damaging Goods. (i)
Alston v. Herring, 25 L. J. Ex. 177; [11 Ex. 822.]

(g) Actual tender of money not necessary, a readiness and willingness is sufficient. Pickford v. The Grand Junction Ry. Co. 8 M. & W. 373; 9 Dowl. 766, where see a form. See Crouch v. The Great Northern Ry. Co. 9 Ex. 556; 23 L. J. Ex. 148, where it was held that the defendants were not entitled to charge the plaintiff more than they did others. See, also, Johnson v. Midland Ry. Co. 4 Ex. 267. Common carriers are bound to carry goods tendered to them to be carried if accompanied with the proper charge, and they have no right to insist upon the sender signing unreasonable conditions, neither have they a right to refuse goods tendered with the proper price, by one person, when at the same time they receive goods of the same class from another person. Garton v. Bristol & Exeter Ry. Co. 30 L. J. Q. B. 273; [1 B. & S. 112,] where see a form. See, also, Baxendale v. The Eastern Counties Ry. Co. 4 C. B. N. S. 63; 27 L. J. C. P. 137; Crouch v. The Great Northern Ry. Co. 11 Ex. 742; 25 L. J. Ex. 137; Sutton v. Great Western Ry. Co. 35 L. J. Ex. 18; [1 Chitty Contr. (11th Am. ed.) 684, 685, and cases in notes; 3 H. & C. 800; L. R. 2 Ap. Ca. 226;] Sutton v. South Eastern Ry. Co. [L. R. 1 Ex. 32;] Baxendale v. South Western Ry. Co. [L. R. 1 Ex.

137; Pickford v. Grand Junction Ry. Co. 8 M. & W. 372; Hales v. London & North Western Ry. Co. 4 B. & S. 66; Paddington v. South Eastern Ry. Co. 5 C. B. N. S. 111; Branley ». South Eastern Ry. Co. 12 C. B. N. S. 63.]

(h) See forms, Newberry v. Colvin, 7 Bing. 190; 1 Cr. & J. 192; Morewood v. Pollock, 1 El. & Bl. 743; 22 L. J. Q. B. 250. On a bill of lading, Colvin v. Newberry, 8 B. & C. 166. Where the bill of lading described the goods as one box containing about 248 ounces of gold dust," it was decided that it was not a declaration of the true nature and value, within the merchant shipping act, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 503, so as to render the ship-owner liable for a loss without his actual fault or privity. Williams v. The African Steam Ship Company, 1 H. & N. 300; 26 L. J. Ex. 69. See Gibbs v. Potter, 10 M. & W. 70; 11 L. J. Ex. 376.

(i) This form may easily be framed by reference to the last form. Damage done by rats is not within any of the exceptions in the bill of lading. Laveroni v. Drury, 8 Ex. 166; 22 L. J. Ex. 2; Kay v. Wheeler, [L. R. 2 C. P. 302;] 36 L. J. C. P. 180. See Dale v. Hall, 1 Wils. 281.

3. For not delivering to Plaintiff's Assignees. Jones v. Jones, 8 M. & W. 431; 10 L. J. Ex. 481. (k)

4. Against Ship-owner for Negligent Stowage. (1)

For that the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, who received the same, certain goods to be properly stowed in the ship of the defendant, and safely carried in the said ship from A. to B. and there delivered to the plaintiff for freight, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, certain perils and casualties only excepted; yet the defendant so negligently stowed the said goods that the same were thereby, and not by any of the said excepted perils and casualties, greatly damaged.

[Like count. Anderson v. Chapman, 5 M. & W. 483. Count for damage done to goods by stowing them on deck. Sargent v. Morris, 3 B. & Ald. 277. For negligence in loading goods on board under special contract. Wilson, 1 C. B. N. S. 153. The like on a contract made abroad. Gaudet, 3 F. & F. 455.]

Cooke v.
Cohen v.

5. Against the Defendant for shipping Dangerous Goods without giving Notice thereof. (m)

Brass v. Maitland, 6 El. & Bl. 474; 26 L. J. Q. B. 49; [Williams v. East India Co. 3 East, 192.]

6. Against the Owner of a Ferry for Injury to Goods.

Walker v. Jackson, 10 M. & W. 161. (n)

[7. Against the Master of a Steam-tug for Negligence in towing the

Plaintiff's Ship.

That in consideration that the plaintiff would employ the defendant with a steam-tug of the defendant to tow a certain ship of the plaintiff from the port

(k) See, in this case, a plea of stoppage in

transitu.

(1) See a form, Hutchinson v. Guion, 5 C. B. N. S. 149; 28 L. J. C. P. 63. The master of a ship is not liable to the owner of goods sent to be shipped on board a general ship, for damage done to them for the negligent stowage of a stevedore appointed by the charterer, such stevedore not being a servant or agent of the master. Nor is he liable for the acts of the stevedore, though it is stipulated by the charter-party that the stevedore shall be paid by and act under the master's orders, except such acts are done in the execution of the master's orders. Blaikie v. Stembridge, 28 L. J. C. P. 333; affirmed in error, 29 L. J. C. P. 212; [S. C. 6 C. B. N. S. 894;] Sack v. Ford, 13 C. B. N. S. 90; 32 L. J. C. P. 12; Anglo-African Company . Lamzed, 35 L. J. C. P. 145; [L. R. 1 C. P. 226;] Sandeman v. Scurr, 36 L. J. C. P. 58; [L. R. 2 Q. B. 86;] Phillips v. Clarke, 2 C. B. N. S. 156; 26 L. J. C. P. 168; The Helene, L. R. 1 C. P.; 35 L. J. C.

P. 1. Forms, Major v. White, 7 C. & P. 41 ;
Anderson v. Chapman, 5 M. & W. 483;
Dowl. 822.

(m) By s. 329 of the merchant shipping act, the carrying of dangerous goods is prohibited without due notice. Brass v. Maitland, 6 El. & Bl. 741; 26 L. J. Q. B. 49. And it is the duty of the person shipping to give information. Alston v. Herring, 11 Ex. 822; 25 L. J. Ex. 177; Farrant . Barnes, 31 L. J. C. P. 137; [11 C. B. N. S. 553.] See forms, Hutchinson v. Guion, 28 L. J. C. P. 63 ; [5 C. B. N. S. 149.] See Williams v. East India Company, 3 East, 192. By 8 Vict. c. 20, s. 105, a penalty is imposed upon any person knowingly sending dangerous goods by railway without distinctly marking their nature on the outside of the package. As to passenger ships, see 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119, s. 29.

(n) See a form against the master of a barge who deviated from his course, showing that a storm arose, and that the plaintiff's goods were injured, &c. Davis v. Garrett, 6 Bing. 716.