United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

Lord Finlay—In this case there were parcels of furs delivered on three occasions by the respondents to the appellants, the London and North-Western Railway Company, who carry goods between London and Belfast. The carriage of these goods is, of course, effected partly by land, as far as Holyhead, and from Holyhead it is effected by sea as far apparently in this case as Greenore, and thence the goods, I suppose, go to Belfast by land. When the furs were delivered to the company they of course would become liable on a contract to carry from London to Belfast, partly by land and partly by sea. The Carriers Act 1830 exempts a carrier from liability in certain cases, and section 1, omitting the immaterial words, provides—“No … common carrier by land for hire shall be liable for the loss of … any … goods … contained in any parcel or package which shall have been delivered … to be carried for hire … when the value of such … articles … contained in each parcel or package shall exceed the sum of ten pounds unless at the time of the delivery thereof at the office … of such … common carrier … the value and nature of such … articles shall have been declared by the person … sending or delivering the same; and such increased charge as hereinafter mentioned, or an engagement to pay the same, be accepted by the person receiving such parcel or package.”

And then section 2 makes provision for an increase of payment in respect of such articles.

The carriers, the London and North-Western Railway Company, the appellants, claim the benefit of this section, and it is for those who plead the section to aver and prove that the section applies, and it does not apply unless the loss took place by land; it does not apply if the loss took place by sea. It is for the carriers who, having entered into a general contract of carriage from London to Belfast, desire to get the benefit of the Act, to show that the facts bring them within that protection, and the facts do not bring them within that protection unless the loss took place by land.

It was said that there were two contracts. I cannot accept that view. The case of Le Conteur v. London and South-Western Railway Company (L.R., 1 Q.B. 54) which was relied upon seems to me to show nothing of the kind. On the contrary the Court there treated the contract as one contract, but said that being a contract for carriage, partly by land and partly by sea, the contract might be divisible as regards the extent of the liability by land as compared with the extent of the liability by sea.

This case has been before six judges already, and each of them has arrived at the same opinion. I desire to express my entire concurrence in the opinion which has been formed by every judge before whom this case has come, and I think the appeal must be dismissed.

Lord Atkinson—I concur. I think this case is perfectly plain. Section 1 of the Carriers Act is directed to the protection of carriers by land against being liable for the loss of goods of a certain value, no declaration being made. That obviously means that it protects them while they are acting in that character, and when a loss is sustained while they are acting in that character. This necessitates its being proved

Page: 437↓