HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1008 and id is 1 raw text is: TRINITY TERM, 13 GEO. M. 1773
is intrusted with the goods to carry and deliver them to the use of the proprietor
thereof, in a reasonable time, he contracts to execute that trust for a reasonable
reward to be paid him, and if he be guilty of a breach of that trust and contract, he
is, by law, answerable to the owner in damages.-In this case the defendants have
been guilty of great negligence, for they neither delivered the silks to Samuel Ireland
at his house, nor [433] gave him any intelligence of the arrival of the box at the
defendant's warehouse in London; and therefore Serjeant Walker prayed judgment
for the plaintiff.
Serjeant Glynn 6 contrA, for the defendants, contended. That.when they received
the goods at their warehouse in Birmingham, they only undertook to carry them from
thence to their warehouse in London and no further, and that it was the duty of
Ireland the consignee, upon the arrival of the goods at London, to have then sent and
inquired for the same, according to the advice thereof which he must have received
from his correspondent the plaintiff at Birmingham, as is the constant and invariable
custom and usage amongst merchants and traders, both in respect to foreign and
inland trade and commerce.
But if what is insisted upon for the plaintiff be law, every carrier of goods to
London, must not only provide porters for light goods, but waggons and barges for
the carriage of heavy goods from their respective warehouses to all places within the
bills of mortality; but this is not the usage, nor is it practicable. That the defendant
could not give intelligence of the arrival of the goods to Ireland, because there was
no legible direction on the box, as the case states. So he prayed judgment for the
defendant.
Curia. We are to determine this case upon the facts and particular circumstances
therein stated, so there is no necessity for us to consider of the laws in general
respecting carriers.-It is stated to us, that these defendants hire a porter at
a stated salary by the week, to carry out goods which come by their coach, and receive
the porterage of such goods as are sent out by that porter; therefore we apprehend
we are bound to say, that the defendants were obliged to send the goods by their
porter to be delivered at Samuel Ireland's house in Princes-Street Spittal-Fields, accord-
ing to the direction, and the promise and undertaking laid in the declaration; as the
defendants constantly kept a porter for this purpose, they engaged and specially under-
took [in this particular case] to deliver the goods to Mr. Ireland, by their porter.
There can be no doubt but carriers are obliged to send notice to persons to whom
goods are directed, of the arrival of those goods within a reasonable time, and must
take special care that the goods be delivered to the right person. It was by the
negligence of the defendants that the direction of the box was obliterated. The
master of a stage-coach takes a greater price for the carriage of goods than other
carriers, so is certainly bound either to send out the goods from his warehouse in
London to be [434] delivered to the persons to whom the same are directed, or to
send notice of the arrival thereof within a reasonable time ;--if the defendants in this
case were to be asked in what manner they usually deliver the goods at London, they
would answer, We always keep a porter at London by whom we send out the goods
to be delivered to the persons to whom the same are directed; our opinion is confined
to this particular case only.
Judgment for the plaintiff.
BosTOCK versus SAUNDERS AND OTERS. C. B. Trespass lies against an excise
officer for breaking and entering the plaintiff's house, under a warrant of the
Commissioners of Excise, obtained upon the defendant's own information that he
suspected teas were concealed in or about the plaintiff's house; where no such
goods are found. [See Boot v. Cooper & .Al., cited 1 Term Rep. K. B. 535, contrA.]
[Over-ruled, Cooper v. Booth, 1785, 3 Esp. 138.]
2 Black. Rep. 912, S. C.]
Trespass vi et armis, for breaking and entering the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and
continuing therein for the space of twelve hours, without the leave and against the
will of the plaintiff, and disturbing him in the quiet and peaceable possession thereof
to his damage of 1001.-Issue being joined upon the general plea of not guilty, this
1141
3 VII=. K. B. 4W3.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1008&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)