In an action against a railway Company, the first count of the declaration alleged that the plaintiff employed the defendants to provide trucks for the carriage of the plaintiff’s horses, for hire to be paid by the plaintiff, in consideration whereof the defendants promised the plaintiff that the trucks should he reasonably fit and proper for the carriage of such horses Breach: that the defendants did not provide fit and proper trucks, whereby the plaritiff’s horses were injured. Second count that the defendants having received certain horses of the plaintiff to be carried by railway, in consequence of the defective state of the truck and the negligerice and want of care of the defendants, the plaintiffs horses weie injured. Plea: payment of 25l. into Court Replication damages ultra. At the trial, it appeared that when the plaintiff delivered the horses to the defendants, he signed at their request a declaration that the value of the horses (did not exceed 10l. per horse, and that, on consideration of the rate charged for their conveyance, he thereby agreed that the same were to be carried entirely at the ownet’s risk. In the course of the journey the horses were injured in consequence of the defective state of the truck in which they were carried. The horses were worth more than 10l each, and if taken at, their real value the damage sustained by the plaintiff was 65l, but if valued at 10l each the 25l. paid into Court covered the plaintiff’s claim. A verdict having been entered for the plantiff for 40l. on motion to enter the verdict for the defendants, the Court being at liberty to draw inferences of fact Held that the plaintiff having made a wilfully false statement as to the value of the horses for the purpose of inducing, and having thereby induced, the defendants to enter into the contract, was not at liberty to shew their real value, in order to obtain compensation above the amount paid into Court — Semble, that thedeclaration of the value of the horses formed no part of the contract, and that even if it were it did not render the contract a conditional contract –Also, that, the stipulation that the horses should he carried entirely at the owner’s risk was not unreasonable and void within the meaning of the 17 and 18 Vict. C 31.
Citations:
[1861] EngR 967, (1861) 7 H and N 477, (1861) 158 ER 559
Links:
Cited by:
Appeal from – M’Cance v The London And North Western Railway Company 20-Jun-1864
The plaintff contracted with the defendant for the transport of horses, understating their value. On their loss, the plaintiff sought their full value. The defendant had succeeded in limiting the award to the value stated.
Held: Williams J . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Estoppel
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.284728
