Archibald Macausland v. William Dick, William Byram, and John Cameron
Date: 6 February 1787 Case No. No 10.
The owners of stagecoaches not answerable for the safe conveyance of money, unless where it has been delivered as such.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
William Dick, one of the owners of a stage-coach plying between Glasgow and Edinburgh, received a parcel belonging to Archibald Macausland. This he marked in the way-bill, with a charge of sixpence, which is the rate demanded for all ordinary parcels not exceeding a certain weight.
The parcel not having been delivered, Mr Macausland brought an action against William Dick, and his partners, for L. 200, alleged to have been contained in it; and
Pleaded, The case of carriers by land, though not specially provided for by the edict of Nautæ, caupones, et stabularii, yet clearly falls within the spirit and meaning of that regulation; and the obligation it creates does not depend on the value of the goods. If these have been received, action must be sustained for re-delivery. This is confirmed by the usage of modern nations, and likewise by the conduct of the owners of stage-coaches in Scotland, who generally take care to express, by a particular advertisement, to what extent they are to be understood to warrant the safety of goods entrusted to their care; l. 1. & 4. 6. D. Naut. Caup. et Stab.; 1. 7. ibid.; Stair, book 1. tit. 13. § 3.; Blackstone, vol. 3. tit. 9. p. 164.
Answered; The owners of stage-coaches do not, in general, undertake the conveyance of money; because, they have no proper repository for it; and because it is almost impossible for them to provide against the frauds or misconduct of the passengers. This article for the most part is, and always ought to be transmitted by a waggon, in which there is a place fitted up for the purpose. There, too, it is usual to proportion the rate of carriage, not to the bulk only, but also to the value of the goods. The consequence of admitting the present claim, would be to subject people, in the defenders situation, to a hazard which did not fall within their agreement, and for which, of course, a corresponding premium could not be stipulated.
It was also argued for the defenders, That the edict ought not to be extended to carriers by land. But the case was determined on this principle, that the owners of stage-coahes, or other carriages for hire, were not responsible for the safe conveyance of money which had been delivered as an ordinary parcel.
“The Lords sustained the defences, and assoilzied.”
Lord Reporter, Eskgrove.Act. Dean of Faculty, Hope.Alt. Maclaurin, J. Dickson.Clerk, Home.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 61. Fac. Col. No 308. p. 477.
