of Hilary

term lat.

London SAMUEL MANNING late of the city of Lon- [A carrier is (to wit.) don, inn-holder, and John Peyton late of the fame bound to deliplace inn-holder, were attached to anfwer Richard it be in the Golden in a plea of trefpafs on the cafe, &c. and whereupon general courfe the faid Richard Golden by Richard Rudd his attorney com- of his trade fo plains, that whereas the faid Samuel and John now are, and for to do.] divers years last past have been, common carriers to carry goods, Declaration. wares and merchandizes from the town of Birmingham in the The record is county of Warwick to the city of London, and the faid Samuel and John whilft they were and continued common carriers as aforefaid, that is to fay, on the 10th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1771, at Birmingham aforefaid, did receive into their care and cuftody two pieces of filk, confifting of divers, (to wit) 119 yards of the value of 30l. in good order and condition. being the property of the faid Richard Golden, to carry the fame fafely from the faid town of Birmingham to the city of London aforefaid, and to deliver the fame to the ufe of the faid Richard Golden, at the houfe of one Samuel Ireland in Prince's-ftreet Spittal-fields, London, that is to fay, at London aforefaid, in the parish of Saint Mary le Bow in the ward of Cheap. And the faid Samuel and John on the fame day and year at London aforefaid, in the parith and ward aforefaid, did undertake to carry and deliver the faid pieces of filk in manner aforefaid, for a reasonable reward to be paid them by the faid Richard Golden: nevertheless, the faid Samuel and John have not, nor hath either Breach. of them taken care to carry and deliver the faid pieces of filk Negligence in in manner aforefaid, but have and each of them hath hitherto entirely omitted and neglected fo to do, fo that the faid pieces of filk, nor any part thereof have ever hitherto come to the faid

Richard

not deliver

ing.

2d Count. For not car

rying and deLivering goods

in a reason

able time to

the plaintiff's ufe for a rea

fonable reward to be paid to defendants.

Breach.

Richard Golden or to his ufe. And whereas the faid Samuel and John fo being common carriers as aforefaid, on the day and year Taft aforefaid, at Birmingham aforefaid, did receive into their in good order care and cuftody two other pieces of filk confifting of divers, and condition (to wit) 119 yards of the value of gol. in good order and condition, being the property of the faid Richard Golden, to carry the fame fafely from the town of Birmingham to the city of London, and to deliver the fame in good order and condition, and within a reasonable time, to the ufe of the faid Richard Golden, at the houfe of one Samuel Ireland weaver in Princes-ftreet Spittal-fields London, that is to fay, at London aforefaid, in the parifh and ward aforefaid; and the faid Samuel and John on the fame day and year at London aforefaid, in the parish and ward aforefaid, did undertake to carry and deliver the faid last mentioned pieces of filk in manner aforefaid, for a reasonable reward to be paid them by the faid Richard Golden; nevertheless the Negligence, faid Samuel and John did not within a reasonable time take care to carry and deliver the faid laft mentioned pieces of filk in manner aforefaid, but delayed the delivering of the faid laft- mentioned pieces of filk an unreasonable time, (to wit), for the space of a year, and behaved themselves fo negligently in the cuflody and care of the faid filks, that for want of due care in them and their fervants in that behalf, the faid laft mentioned pieces of filk were damaged, and rendered of no value to the faid Richard Golden. And whereas on the 10th day of May in the year of our Lord 1771, at London, (to wit) in the parish and ward aforelivered goods faid, in confideration that the faid Richard Golden, at the fpecial to defendants, inftance and request of the faid Samuel and John, had delivered to the faid Samuel and John divers other goods and chattels, (to wit) two other pieces of filk of the faid Richard Golden of the value of 30l. to be fafely and fecurely carried and conveyed from Birmingham aforefaid to the city of London, and there, (to wit) at London, to be fafely and fecurely delivered in a reasonable time to the ufe of the faid Richard Golden, at the house of one Samuel Ireland in Princes-freet, Spittal-fields, London, for a reasonable reward, defend- ward to be therefore paid by the faid Richard Golden to the said Samuel and John, they the faid Samuel and John undertook aud faithfully promifed the faid Richard Golden fafely and fecurely to carry and convey the faid laft mentioned goods and chattels from Birmingham aforefaid to London aforefaid, and there fafely and fecurely to deliver the fame in a reasonable time to the use of the faid Richard Golden, at the house of the faid Samuel Ireland in Princes-ftreet, Spittal-fields, London; and although the said Samuet and John, on the fame day and year at Birmingham aforefaid, had and received the faid goods and chattels to carry, convey and deliver as aforefaid, yet the faid Samuel and John, not regarding

3d Count.

In confider

ation that plaintiff de

at their request to be

carried from Birmingham

to London,

and there de

livered in a reasonable

time for a reafonable re

ants under

took to carry

and deliver the fame accordingly.

Breach of promise and

undertaking,

their aforefaid promife and undertaking, but contriving and fraudulently intending craftily and fubtily to deceive and defraud the faid Richard Golden, in this behalf, have not yet fafely and fecurely carried and conveyed and delivered the faid goods and chattels or any part thereof to the ufe of the faid Richard Golden, at the houfe of the faid Samuel Ireland in Princes-ftreet, Spittalfields, London, or in any other manner to the faid Richard Golden or to his ufe, although a reasonable time for the delivery thereof hath long fince elapfed, and although to do this the faid Samuel and John afterwards, (to wit) on the firft day of November in the year of our Lord 1772, and very often both before and afterwards at London aforefaid, in the parish and ward aforefaid, were requefted by the faid Richard Golden; but they, fafely and fecurely to carry, convey and deliver the fame according to their promife and undertaking, have hitherto wholly refused and still doth refuse; whereupon the faid Richard Golden fays he has damage to the amount of 40l. and thereof he brings fuit, &c.

to the first and

lait count.

And the faid Samuel and John, by Carey Bayley their attorney, Plea. come and defend the wrong and injury, when, &c. And as to Not guilty as the first and fecond counts in the faid declaration mentioned fay fecond counts that they are not guilty of the premises above laid to their charge in manner and form as the faid Richard hath above thereof com- Did not proplained against them, and of this they put themfelves upon the mife, as to the country, &c. and the faid Richard Golden doth the like, &c. And as to the last count in the faid declaration mentioned, the faid Samuel and John fay that they did not promife or undertake in manner and form as the faid Richard hath above thereof complained against them, and of this they put themfelves upon the country, &c. and the faid Richard Golden doth the like, &c.; therefore to try the faid feveral iffues between the parties aforefaid, the sheriffs are commanded that they caufe to come here on the morrow of the purification of the bleffed Mary twelve, &c. by whom, &c. and who neither, &c. to recognize, &c. becaufe as well, &c.

Upon the trial of this caufe a verdict was given for the plaintiff, with damages and cofts, fubject to the opinion of this court upon the following cafe, flated in thefe words, (viz.) It appearing upon the trial of this cause that the defendants were common carriers from Birmingham to London; that on the 7th day of June 1771, they received a box containing two pieces of filk confiting of 119 yards, directed to Mr. Samuel Ireland, Princes-freet, Spittal-fields, London; that the box came to the defendants' warehoufe in London, on the 8th of June following, with no legible directions upon it, where it remained for the fpace of a year; at which time the plaintiff and Ireland fettling their accounts together, difcovered the miflake of this box having been fent by the Birmingham coach, and of it's not being delivered;

upon

Cafe ftated for

the opinion of

the court,

Alleyn 93.

upon which, plaintiff and Ireland went to the warehouse and found the box, and upon opening it, a letter of advice from the plaintiff to him [Ireland] was found therein; and the filks then appeared to be damaged to the amount of 29l. 145. and for that reafon plaintiff and Ireland refufed to take the box and filks upon their being offered to them, and the defendant Manning refused to make any fatisfaction for the damage; that the defendants before the faid time neither delivered the goods nor gave any intelligence to Ireland of the arrival of the box at the warehouse; that the name of Samuel Ireland, and place of his abode appears in a printed book, being a directory containing the names and places of abode of merchants and traders, which book they the defendants had in their warehoufe, that the way-bill in the defendant's cuftody and poffeffion contained the name of Samuel Ireland and no further directions, that no inquiry was made at the defendant's warehouse at Birmingham of the plaintiff to know where Ireland lived, nor was any inquiry made according to the directory, and that defendants hire a porter at a stated falary by the week to carry out goods which come by their coach, and receive the porterage of fuch goods as are fent out by the faid

porter.

The queftion for the opinion of the court is, whether under the circumftances of this cafe the plaintiff is intitled to recover? T. Walker for the plaintiff.

J. Burland for the defendants.

In the debate of this cafe at the bar, Serjeant Walker for the plaintiff infifted, that it was the duty of the defendants to have carried and delivered the filks in a reasonable time after they received the fame at their warehoufe in Birmingham, to Samuel Ireland at his houfe in Princes-ftreet, Spittal-fields, London, according to the direction; that when a carrier receives goods to carry and deliver them to any perfon at any certain place, he thereby undertakes to do what the owner of the goods himself was to do and intended to have done; and the carrier is anfwerable if any damage or lofs happen through his, or his fervant's negli gence or want of due care, or doth not carry and deliver the fame to the perfon, or at the place, according to the direction, and this is by the rules and principles of the common law; the carrier is intrufted with the goods to carry and deliver them to the use of the proprietor thereof, in a reafonable time, he contracts to execute that truft 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, anfwerable to the owner in damages. In this case the defendants have been guilty of great negligence, for they neither delivered the filks to Samuel Ireland at his houfe, nor

gave him any intelligence of the arrival of the box at the defendant's warehoufe in London; and therefore Serjeant Walker prayed judgment for the plaintiff.

Serjeant Glynn è contrà, 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 warehoufe in London and no further, and that it was the duty of Ireland the confignee, upon the arrival of the goods at London, to have then fent and inquired for the fame, according to the advice thereof which he must have received from his correfpondent the plaintiff at Birmingham, as is the conftant and invari able cuftom and ufage amongst merchants and traders, both in refpect to foreign and inland trade and commerce.

But if what is infifted upon for the plaintiff be law, every carrier of goods to London, muft 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 ufage, 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 cafe upon the facts and particular circumstances therein ftated, fo there is no neceffity for us to confider of the laws in general refpecting carriers.It is flated to us, that thefe defendants hire a porter at a stated falary by the week, to carry out goods which come by their coach, and receive the porterage of fuch goods as are fent out by that porter; therefore we apprehend we are bound to fay, that the defendants were obliged to fend the goods by their porter to be delivered at Samuel Ireland's houfe in Princes-Street Spittal-fields, according to the direction, and the promise and undertaktng laid in the declaration; as the defendants conftantly kept a porter for this purpose, they engaged and fpecially undertook [in this particular cafe] to deliver the goods to Mr. Ireland, by their porter.

There can be no doubt but carriers are obliged to fend notice Owen. $7. to perfons to whom goods are directed, of the arrival of those goods within a reasonable time, and must take fpecial care that the goods be delivered to the right perfon. It was by the negligence of the defendants that the direction of the box was ob literated. The mafter of a flage-coach takes a greater price for the carriage of goods than other carriers, fo is certainly bound either to fend out the goods from his warehouse in London to be Vol. III. delivered

F F