Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/771

 —

.

Part

III.

—

Bailment for Valuable Consideration.

otherwise than by lien

way

Hen may operate as a waiver

of

of the

549 ^•

Hire of

(/).

CustodyAs a general rule, a right of lien confers no right to sell the chattel (./ ) unless such right is expressly conferred by statute, and Right of sale, sale without right causes loss of the lien (k).

Sub-Sect.

J

5.

Railway Cloah-rooms.

1115. Railway companies receiving passengers' luggage or other Railway chattels in the cloak-rooms of railway stations become responsible cloak-rooms, to the owners of the chattels deposited as warehousemen only, and not as carriers (Z). Consequently they are not insurers, and, apart from special contract, they undertake no further obligation by

such receipt than to take proper care that the chattels are safely kept from loss or injury (/«). In the absence of any conditions limiting liability or of contributory negligence on the part of the bailor, the are responsible for the entire value of the chattels {n), but not for consequential damages resulting from the loss (o). If the bailor and bailee agree that the chattels shall be deposited on terms other than those implied by law, the duty of the bailee is determined by the terms on which both parties have agreed {p) Conditions limiting liability may be contained in the ticket given as a receipt to a bailor when depositing a chattel for safe custody, or may be otherwise agreed. In order, however, that a railway company may thus limit its liability, it is necessary for it to show not only that when the bailor entered into the contract he was aware that the ticket was not given to him merely as a receipt for the chattel, but also that it was intended to convey to him the knowledge of the terms of the special contract upon which the company agreed to receive it (q). And the onus of proof is on the company to show that the bailor was aware of such intention on its part at the time when he accepted the ticket, and that he accepted it as notice of such bailees

terms

(r)

.

(i) White V. Gainer (1824), 2 Bing. 23, per Best, C.J., at p. 24 ; Weeks v. Goode (1859), 6 C. B. (n. s.) 367 ; Boardman v. Gill (1808), Camp. 410, n. ; Dubs v. Richards (1842), 4 Man. & G. 574. (,/) Pothonier v. Dawson (1816), Holt (n. p.), 383, per Gibbs, C.J., at p. 385. (k) Compare Mulliner v. Florence (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 484, where an innkeeper was held not to have a right to sell his guest's horses over which he had a lien. The law on this point is now altered by the Innkeepers Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict, Some liens can be enforced c. 38), as to which see title Inns and Innkeepers. by sale by means of an action asking for such relief (Story, Commentaries on

Equity Jurisprudence, 13th

ed.,

s.

1217).

Pratt v. 'Van Toll v. South Eastern Rail. Go. (1862), 12 C. B. (n. s.) 75 South Eastern Rail. Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 718. For the position of railway companies {I)



as carriers, see title

Carriers.

Van

Toll v. South Eastern Rail. Co., supra, per Erle, C. J., at pp. 82, 83. (n) Roche v. Cork, Blackrock and Passage Rail. Co. (1889), 24 L. R. Ir. 250.

(m)

(o) A7iderson v. North Eastern Rail. Co. (1861), 4 L. T. 216. (p) Harris v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 515, per Blackburn, J., at pp. 529, 530. (g) Richardson, Spence ci* Co. v. Rowntree, [1894] A. C. 217, and cases cited

note (r)

(r), infra.

Parker

v.

South Eastern Rail. Co. (1877), 2 C. P. D. 416



see especially the

Special contracts,