BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> J. and D. Paton & Co. v. Alexander Hunter [1875] ScotLR 12_305 (3 February 1875) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1875/12SLR0305.html Cite as: [1875] ScotLR 12_305, [1875] SLR 12_305 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 305↓
[Sheriff of Linlithgow, Clackmannan, and Kinross.
In a case where the tenant of a grass field let grazing therein for a certain number of cows, opinion that in the event of proved injury to the cows by the operations of a third party, which the lessor took no steps to prevent, the lessor would be liable.
The pursuers in this case were tenants of a grass field at Tillicoultry, and they let to the defender grazing in it for three cows from May 1 to November 11, 1872, at the rate of £5 for each cow. This amount was not paid, and this action was brought to recover it. The defence was a counter claim in name of damages for injury done to the cows by the wet condition of the field, that condition being caused by the operations of the Tillicoultry Gas Company, who had pumped large quantities of water from their works, which had accumulated on the field—operations which the pursuers had taken no steps to put a stop to. The Sheriff-Substitute found for the pursuers, and, his judgment having been reversed by the Sheriff on appeal, the pursuers appealed to the Court of Session, and pleaded—(1) “The defender's cows having been grazed in the said field under an agreement with the pursuers that he should pay to them the rent or grassmail condescended on, he is liable in the amount sued for, and decree should be pronounced therefor, with interest and expenses as concluded for. (2) The defender's claim of damages for alleged injury to his cows cannot be maintained as a set-off against the rent or grass-mail sued for, seeing that the said claim is illiquid and denied. (3) The pursuers are not responsible for the acts of the Tillicoultry Gas Company. (4) The pursuers are not liable in the damages claimed by the defender, in respect, 1st, that these alleged damages were not caused by any act of the pursuers, or of any party for whom they are responsible; 2d, that under the contract the pursuers were only bound to allow the defender a share of the grazing afforded by the said field, which they did; 3d, that the agreement between the parties did not impose on the pursuers warrandice to keep the field or pasture in any particular condition, or to protect the defender against the unauthorised acts of third parties, for whom the pursuers were not answerable; and 4th, that the defender got the same grazing in the field as the pursuers themselves and the other grazing tenants. (5) Separatim. The defender is not entitled to maintain a claim of damages against the pursuers, as the latter took legal measures to stop the operations of the Gas Company complained of by the defender immediately after the defender lodged his claim, and the same was rejected by the Gas Company. (6) The defender is barred from maintaining his said claim of damages by his having at his own hand removed his cows from the said field without notice to the pursuers, and disposed of them without allowing the pursuers or the Gas Company an opportunity of ascertaining the alleged injury to the animals. (7) The damages alleged to have been suffered by the defenders being denied, he must instruct the same. (8) The real question in dispute in this case being the defender's counter claim of damages, which claim could not competently be sued or discussed under the Debts Recovery Act, the pursuers were not bound to bring their action under that Act, as it could not have been suitably disposed of except in the Ordinary Court.”
The defender pleaded—“(1) The pursuers having failed to furnish the defender with the grazing bargained for, and for which the rent now sued for was agreed to be paid, are not entitled to payment of said rent. (2) The pursuers are liable to the defender in the damages sustained by him through their failure to implement their agreement, as well as for the injury, sustained through the wet state of the field let for grazing. (3) More especially are the pursuers liable for such damage and injury in respect that they were partners of the Company through whose operations the said damage was caused, and that they aided in causing the said damage. (4) In no view are the pursuers entitled to claim expenses in this case, in respect that the claim, being one for rent under £50, should have been made under the ‘Debts Recovery (Scotland) Act, 1867.’”
At advising—
But, in the second place, I am of opinion that Mr Hunter has not proved that his cows were injured in health by the flow of water or the accumulation of water on a portion of the field—a portion only 1
The season of 1872 was very unfavourable to the keeping of milk cows and to dairy produce. Of this there is evidence in the proof before us. Special injury from the special cause alleged has not, in my opinion, been proved. For the effect of the weather—for “the season's difference,” which Shakspeare calls “the penalty of Adam,”—Mr Paton cannot be responsible. The proof of special injury and special cause, of which the burden in this respect rests on Mr Hunter, is, in my view, not only unsatisfactory and insufficient, but unfavourable to his plea. The decided preponderance of evidence is with Mr Paton.
The water covered but a small portion of the field. The rest was grass, and dry. Cows will stand in water—they sometimes enjoy it; but mere standing in it will not injure the cow who does not lie down in it. If the cows did not prefer the water to the dry grass, and if they did not lie down in the water, so as to bring the udder into contact with the water, there is nothing to explain how they met with any special injury But there is no sufficient proof of the cows actually lying down in the water when there was
Page: 306↓
Mr Lindsay, a veterinary surgeon, and the only one examined, was called by Mr Hunter, but he gives no support to the suggestion of this probability; and Mr Mitchell and Mr M'Leish, and Mr Thomson and Mr Brown, men of practical experience, witnesses for the pursuer, speak to the same effect, and negative the suggestion.
Then it is to be remembered that the cows are stated by Mr Hunter himself and by his wife to have been affected in the middle of July, before the time when the pumping operations of the Gas Company, which caused a flow of water, commenced, and before any accumulations of water on the field.
The alleged effect preceding the alleged cause is peculiar.
It is plain to me that the case turns on the question of fact. Both Sheriffs have applied themselves carefully to the consideration of the case. But the Sheriff-Principal seems to have viewed it as turning rather on the question of liability than on the Question of fact on the proof. I concur with him in regard to liability, but not as to the fact.
On the question of the evidence of injury and of the cause of injury to Mr Hunter's cows, my opinion is in accordance with that of the Sheriff-Substitute.
I do not think that special injury has been proved, or that any injury has been traced to the special cause alleged.
Counsel for Paton & Company—Dean of Faculty ( Clark), Q.C., and Asher. Agent— Alexander, Morrison, S.S.C.
Counsel for Hunter—Solicitor-General ( Watson) Q.C., and Balfour. Agents— Keegan & Welsh, S.S.C.
