« 上一頁繼續 »
narily charged by del credere agents in the said trade. And Against del the defendants, in fact, always accounted to the plaintiffs for credere
agent for the price, whether they received the same from the purchasers not acor not.
counting. 5. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants are liable to them as del credere agents, but if not so liable are, under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned, liable as ordinary agents.
6. On the — the plaintiffs consigned to the defendants for sale a large quantity of goods, including — tons of
tons of 7. On or about the the defendants sold tons of —, part of such goods, to one G. H., for £- at three months' credit, and delivered the same to him.
8. G. H. was not at that time in good credit, and was in insolvent circumstances ; and the defendants might, by ordinary care and diligence, have ascertained the fact.
9. G. H. did not pay for the said goods, but before the expiration of the said three months for which credit had been given was adjudicated a bankrupt; and the plaintiffs have never received the said sum of £
or any part thereof. The plaintiffs claim :(1.) Damages to the amount of £(2.) Such further or other relief as the nature of the case
Claim for Losses on Sales and Resales made for Defendant
and for Commission. 1. The plaintiffs carry on business as merchants in Hamburg. Claim by The defendant is a cor merchant at M., in the county of E.
losses on 2. Previously to the month of June, 1875, the defendant the market agreed with the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs should buy and sell commis
and for grain on the Hamburg market on behalf of the defendant, sion. according to the instructions of the defendant, upon the terms, amongst other things, that the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs commission for purchase and re-sale at the rate of £2 per cent. upon the value of the wheat purchased and re-sold, and brokerage at the rate of 25 Rm/- per 1,000 cwt. of the said wheat, and should pay to the plaintiffs any losses which might result from the purchase and re-sale of the said wheat, and the expenses incurred by the plaintiffs in that behalf,
Claim by an agent for losses on the market.
3. From the month of June to the month of November, 1875, the plaintiffs bought and sold various quantities of grain under the said agreement according to the instructions of the defendant in that behalf, and from time to time furnished the defendant with accounts showing the balance of profit or loss upon the several transactions under the said agreement.
4. In the said month of November, the losses on the said transactions exceeded the profits by a considerable sum, and there became and is due and owing from the defendant to the plaintiffs a sum of £320 in respect of losses, brokerage, commission, and expenses under the said agreement.
5. In the alternative the plaintiff says that in the month of November aforesaid, the plaintiff and defendant met, the accounts between the parties were gone through, a balance struck, and an account showing a sum of £320 to be due to the defendant, was stated.
6. The defendant has not paid the same or any part thereof.
The plaintiffs claim £320, with interest until judgment.
Claim for loss of Cattle through Negligence and Misconduct
of Agister. Negligence 1. The plaintiff and defendant are farmers, and in May, of agister. 1875, it was agreed between them that the defendant should
agist seven head of cattle for the plaintiff for twenty weeks at
Duty and (a) The duty of an agister of cattle is to furnish them with suitable liability of food and nourishment, and to give them a proper and reasonable amount an agister of exercise and fresh air. He is also bound to take reasonable care of
their safety. Thus, if he turn them on a common and afterwards take no heed of them so that they are lost, he is liable. (Coggs v. Bernard, 2 Raym. 909.) If a person places a horse in a pasture surrounded by rotten or defective fences, and the horse is lost, the agister is liable, but if it went away as much through its own vicious or ungovernable nature and got away through its own impatience of restraint as much as in consequence of the defects of the fences, the agister is not liable. (Addison on Contr., 7th ed. 653. See also Smith v. Cook, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 79.)
In the case of gratuitous bailments or agistment the agister is liable for gross neglect. (Rooth v. Wilson, 1 B. & Ald. 61, 62.)
508. per head for the whole period, and that they should be Negligence kept in two fields of the defendant in company with five young
of agister. bullocks belonging to the defendant, and that no other stock should be kept in those fields or with the said cattle of the plaintiff during the time of such agistment.
2. The plaintiff on the 13th of May delivered to the defendant the said cattle, namely, six heifers and one bullock upon the terms and for the purpose aforesaid, but the defendant did not keep the same according to the agreement in the two fields and with the five bullocks mentioned, but turned them over other fields in company with a general herd. The land so allotted to the whole herd was overstocked, thereby causing depreciation in value of the plaintiff's said cattle, and rendering them subject to attack from infectious diseases.
3. In August, 1875, some of the defendant's cattle upon the farm and lands on which the plaintiff's said cattle were being agisted, were attacked by the contagious disease called pleuropneumonia, and it thereupon became the defendant's duty to report to the local authorities the outbreak of such disease, and to adopt the measures prescribed by law for preventing the spread of the disease. The defendant wilfully neglected to make such report and to adopt such measures, and failed to act with reasonable care and ordinary diligence in preserving the plaintiff's said cattle from contagion, by reason of which defaults on the part of the defendant certain of the plaintiff's cattle were attacked by the disease, and destroyed on the ground of such infection, and the value of them was wholly lost to the plaintiff.
4. Before any of the plaintiff's said cattle were so infected, they ought to have been slaughtered by the defendant in the manner prescribed or permitted by law in such cases, and their carcases sold for food, but the defendant neglected to have the plaintiff's said cattle slaughtered while they were still fit for food, and while they would have realized a price nearly or quite equivalent to their full value. Owing to the defendant's said neglect two of the plaintiff's said cattle were afterwards attacked by the said disease, and were rendered valueless, the compensation allowed by law having been forfeited by reason of the defendant being convicted under the provisions of “ The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts." The remainder of the
Negligence plaintiff's said cattle were illegally removed by the defendant
from his land without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, and were sold by the defendant for very much less than their value. Several of them had been, through the defendant's negligence, previously attacked with the said disease, and thereby much depreciated in value.
5. The defendant has not accounted to the plaintiff for any part of the money received by him upon such sale, and the plaintiff by reason of the aforesaid breaches of contract by the defendant, and of the defendant's disobedience of the law and want of reasonable care and ordinary diligence, has lost and been deprived of his said cattle and of their value.
The plaintiff claims £100 damages.
Statement of Defence and Counter-claim. 1. In or about May, 1874, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed for the agisting of certain cattle for the plaintiff by the defendant for twenty weeks at 50s. per head, and the cattle were agisted accordingly. There was no agreement with respect to the said cattle that they should be kept in any particular fields or only with any particular kind or quantity of stock.
2. The agreement of 1875, stated in the 1st paragraph of the statement of claim, was in writing, and was contained in a letter from the plaintiff to the defendant, and in another letter from the defendant to the plaintiff, and was to the effect that the cattle referred to in the statement of claim should be agisted on the same terms as last year (meaning the terms on which cattle were agisted as above mentioned in 1874). Neither by the said agreement of 1875, nor in any other manner did the defendant ever promise or agree as alleged in the statement of claim with respect to the two fields, or to the not keeping other stock.
3. The defendant did in fact (though not bound to do so by agreement or otherwise) keep the plaintiff's cattle in two fields called Low Field and Parkhouse Meadow (which the defendant supposes to be the two fields referred to by the plaintiff), and with no other stock except some bullocks of the defendant, not exceeding five in number, and the plaintiff's cattle escaped from and continued out of the said two fields without any act or Negligence default of the defendant.
of agister. 4. The defendant denies that the land on which the plain- Defence. tiff's cattle were kept was at any time overstocked, and he denies the alleged effects of the alleged overstocking, and he denies any breach of the said agreement.
5. Early in August, 1875, one of the defendant's cattle then being in a field in which two of plaintiff's cattle were being agisted, became ill. The defendant immediately called in a veterinary surgeon, and subsequently another, and adopted all proper measures. For some days he was not informed, and did not know, and had not reason to believe that the disease was contagious, or was pleuro-pneumonia, and when he was so informed, he forthwith gave due notice to the proper authorities. Such notice could not have been given more than one day earlier than it was given, and the defendant in not so giving it one day earlier acted without any wilful default, and without negligence, and in ignorance of the nature of the disease. Afterwards, and before any of plaintiff's cattle became infected, defendant communicated all the facts to the plaintiff, and asked for instructions. Plaintiff refused to take his cattle away, and asked the defendant to make the best of them for him. Defendant accordingly made endeavours to dispose of plaintiff's cattle for him, but could not obtain proper terms, and while he was still making such endeavours with all proper diligence, two of plaintiff's cattle became infected without any act or default of the defendant, and were slaughtered by the police. On the 23rd September, defendant caused plaintiff to be informed that defendant would, in pursuance of the said authority, sell four of plaintiff's cattle the next day, to which plaintiff agreed. On the 24th September, defendant accordingly sold the plaintiff's four cattle for £19 2s. nett, which was the best price he could get; afterwards the only one remaining of the seven agisted cattle, which did not belong to the plaintiff, but to one Procter, was sold by the defendant for Procter, who ratified the sale and received the proceeds with the plaintiff's consent.
6. The defendant denies that he was guilty of any such wrong or breach of contract or of duty in reference to reporting the disease, or adopting measures or using care and diligence, or to having the cattle slaughtered, or to removing and selling