^{page 377 note 1} (1912) 106 L. T. 533, 535, 536. An unusual somnolence seems to have come over the other law reporters about this period: this volume of the Law Times contains several interesting cases which are not reported elsewhere.

^{page 377 note 2} It would be superfluous to give more than a few examples: Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 M. & W. 519 (Parke B.); Collis v. Selden (1868) L. B. 3 C. P. 495 (Willes J.); Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 (Bowen L.J.); Earl v. Lubbock [1905] 1 K. B. 253 (Stirling L.J.); Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins [1909] A. C. 640 (Lord Dunedin); Latham v. Johnson [1913] 1 K. B. 398 (Farwell and Hamilton L.JJ.); Quebec Ry. Co. v. Vandry [1920] A. C. 662 (Lord Sumner); Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332 (Rowiatt and Wright JJ.); Anglo-Celtic Shipping Co. v. Elliott (1926) 42 T. L. R. 297 (Roche J.).

^{page 377 note 3} Noble v. Harrison, ubi supra (Wright J.).

^{page 377 note 4} Gautret v. Egerton (1867) L. R. 2 C. P. 371 (Willes J.).

^{page 377 note 5} Piggot v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1846) 3 C. B. 229 (Tindal C.J.).

^{page 377 note 6} Latham v. Johnson, ubi supra (Hamilton L.J. at p. 414); Jones v. Festiniog Ry. Co. (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 733 (Lush J.); Weld-Blundell v. Stephens [1920] A. C. p. 985 (Lord Sumner).

^{page 377 note 7} Parry v. Smith (1879) 4 C. P. D. 325, 327.

^{page 377 note 8} Le Lievre v. Gould, ubi supra, at p. 502.

^{page 377 note 9} White v. Steadman [1913] 3 K. B. 340, 347 (Lush J.).

^{page 378 note 10} Langridge v. Levy, ubi supra. With this contrast Lord Dunedin in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, ubi supra (at p. 646): ‘A loaded gun will not go off unless some one pulls the trigger, a poison is innocuous unless some one takes it, gas will not explode unless it is mixed with air and then a light is set to it.’

^{page 378 note 11} E.g. Erle C.J. in Potter v. Faulkner (1861) 1 B. & S. 800; Bramwell, L.J. in Powell v. Fall (1880)Google Scholar 5 Q B. D. 597; Collins, M.K. in Earl v. Lubbock [1905] 1Google Scholar K. B. 253.

^{page 378 note 12} Mellor J. in Powell v Fall, ubi supra.

^{page 378 note 13} Hurdman v. N. E. Ry. Co. (1878) 3 C. P. D. 168 (Cotton L.J.); Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Mulholland [1898] A. C. 216 (Lord Shand); Ruoff v. Long & Co. [1916] 1 K. B. 148 (Avory J.).

^{page 378 note 14} Hurdman v. N. E. Ry. Co., ubi supra.

^{page 378 note 15} (1866) L. R. 1 Ex. 265, p. 279. Cp. Ellenborough, Lord in a very early case, Dixon v. Bell (1816)Google Scholar Holt, 233, ‘an instrument of mischief,’ and on the motion for a new trial, 5 M. & S. 198, ‘capable of doing mischief.’

^{page 378 note 16} Chichester Corporation v. Foster [1906] 1 K. B. 167.

^{page 378 note 17} (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330.

^{page 378 note 18} Jones v. Festiniog Ry. Co. (1868) ubi supra.

^{page 378 note 19} E.g. by Bowen, L.J. in Filburn v. People's Palace and Aquarium Co. (1890)Google Scholar 25 Q. B. D. 258.

^{page 378 note 20} Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co. [1914] 3 K. B. 772 (Lord Sumner); Mansel v. Webb (1918) 88 L. J. K. B. 323 (Duke L.J.); Manton v. Brocklebank [1923] 2 K. B. 212 (Atkin L.J.).

^{page 378 note 21} Ponting v. Noakes [1894] 2 Q. B. 281 (Charles J.); Greenwell v. Low Becchburn Colliery Co. [1897] 2 Q. B. 165 (Bruce J.); West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14 (Lord Alverstone C.J.); Baker v. Snell [1908] 2 K. B. 825 (Kennedy L.J.).

^{page 378 note 22} Farrant v. Barnes (1862) 11 C. B. (N.S.) 553 (Willes J.); Wilson v. New berry (1871) L. B. 7 Q. B. 31 (Mellor J.). Cp. ‘extremely dangerous and unruly character’: Piggot v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1846) 3 C. B. 229 (Tindal C.J.). With these statements of the law should be contrasted Firth v. Bowling Iron Co (1878) 3 C. P. D. 254 and the judgment of Bramwell B. in Nichols v. Marsland (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 255.

^{page 379 note 23} Stirling, L.J. in Foster v. Warblington U. C. [1906] 1Google Scholar K. B. 648; Parker, J. in Jones v. Llanrwst U. C. [1911] 1Google Scholar Ch. 393; Astbnry, J. in Hoare & Co. V. McAlpine [1923] 1Google Scholar Ch. 167, 175 (referring to argument for plaintiffs): ‘an action on the oase in the nature of trespass … where a man releases some force brought by him on to his own property, which gets beyond his control and injures his neighbour.’ Cp. the language of Blackburn, J. in Hodgkinson v. Ennor (1863)Google Scholar 4 B. & S. 229.

^{page 379 note 24} (1871) L. R. 6 Ex. 217, 221. Cp. the same judge in Nichols v. Marsland, ubi supra.

^{page 379 note 25} (1865) 3 H. & C. 774, 789.

^{page 379 note 26} Parry v. Smith, ubi supra; Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, ubi supra.

^{page 379 note 27} Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society [1903] 1 K. B. 155.

^{page 379 note 28} Thomas v. Winchester (1852) 6 N. Y. 397, Bigelow L.C. 602; cp. per Lord Dunedin in Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, ubi supra.

^{page 379 note 29} George v. Skivington (1869) L. R. 5 Ex. 1, as explained by Brett, M.R. in Cunnington v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1883)Google Scholar 49 L. T. 392, Field, and Cave, JJ. in Heaven v. Pender (1882)Google Scholar 9 Q. B. D. 302; Chitty, J. in Cann v. Wilson (1888) 39Google Scholar Ch. D. 39; Romer, J. in Scholes v. Brook [1891]Google Scholar W. N. 16, and (semble) Atkinson, Lord in Cavalier v. Pope [1906]Google Scholar A. C. 428. Lush, J. also thought that the decision could be justified if it had proceeded on that ground: Blacker v. Lake and Elliot (1912) 106Google Scholar L. T. 533; White v. Steadman [1913] 3 K. B. 340.

^{page 379 note 30} Dixon v. Bell (1816) 1 Stark. 287; Holt 233; on appeal 5 M. & S. 198. Sullivan v. Creed [1904] 2 Ir. R. 317. Cp. per Lord Dunedin in Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, ubi supra.

^{page 380 note 31} Anglo-Celtic Shipping Co. v. Elliott (1926) 42 T. L. R. 297.

^{page 380 note 32} White v. Steadman [1913] 3 K. B. 340. Cp. Le Lievre v. Gould, ubi supra, per Bowen L.J.

^{page 380 note 33} Blakemore v. Bristol and Exeter Ry. Co. (1858) 8 E. & B. 1035.

^{page 380 note 34} MacCarthy v. Young (1861) 6 H. & N. 329.

^{page 380 note 35} Caledonian Ry Co. v. Mulholland, ubi supra; Redhead v. M. Ry. Co. (1869) 9 B. & S. 519.

^{page 380 note 36} Earl v. Lubbock, ubi supra.

^{page 380 note 37} Bates v. Batey [1913] 3 K. B. 351.

^{page 380 note 38} Longmeid v. Holliday (1851) 6 Ex. 761.

^{page 380 note 38a} Bates v. Batey [1913] 3 K. B. 351, 353.

^{page 380 note 39} Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 M. & w. 519.

^{page 380 note 40} Sullivan v. Creed [1904] 2 Ir. R. 317, 340. Cp. n. (10) supra.

^{page 380 note 41} Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 Q. B. 491; Australian Steam Shipping Co. v. Devitt (1917) 33 T. L. R. 178; Humphery v. Bowers (1929) 45 T. L. R. 297.

^{page 380 note 42} Le Lievre v. Gould, ubi supra. This rule would seem to be an anomaly which can only be explained by the history of our law. It is an unforeseen development of the common law principle that damages could never be obtained for an innocent misrepresentation except in contract. See also Bigelow, Leading Cases on the Law of Torts, pp. 619—626.

^{page 381 note 43} E.g. Langridge v. Levy (1837) 2 Ex. 519; Winlerbottom v. Wright (1842) 10 M. & W. 109; Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503; Earl v. Lubbock [1905] 1 K. B. 253; Caledonian Ry. Co. v. Mulholland [1898] A. C. 216. See Bohlen's Studies in the Law of Torts, pp. 76—80, 86—7, and for the difficulties of the law the judgment of Kennedy, J. in Earl v. Lubbock (1904)Google Scholar 74 L. J. K. B. 121.

^{page 381 note 44} [1920] A. C. 956, 985.

^{page 381 note 45} Crowder v. Tinkler (1816) 19 Ves. G17.

^{page 381 note 46} R. v. Lister (1857) 7 Cox, 342.

^{page 381 note 47} Hepburn v. Lordan (1865) 2 H. & M. 345.

^{page 381 note 48} Per Lord Campbell in R. v. Lister, ubi supra.

^{page 381 note 49} See 2 Russell on Crimes, 8th ed., 1715. See R. v. Bennett (1858) 8 Cox, 74; Webley v. Woolley (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 61.

^{page 381 note 50} Alston v. Herring (1856) 11 Ex. 822.

^{page 381 note 51} Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 471.

^{page 381 note 52} Farrant v. Barnes (1862) 11 C. B. (N.S.) 553.

^{page 381 note 53} But not oxygen water which gives off only 20 volumes of oxygen instead of 100: Great Northern Ry. Co. v. L. E. P. Transport and Depository, Ltd. [1922] 2 K. B. 742.

^{page 381 note 54} Hutchinson v. Guion (1858) 5 C. B. (N.S.) 149.

^{page 381 note 55} Williams v. East India Co. (1802) 3 East, 192.

^{page 381 note 56} Mitchell, Cotts & Co. v. Steel Bros. [1916] 2 K. B. 610 (Atkin J.).

^{page 381 note 57} Hearne v. Carton (1859) 2 E. & E. 66.

^{page 382 note 58} Farrant v. Barnes, ubi supra.

^{page 382 note 59} Transoceanica Societa Italiana v. Shipton [1923] 1 K. B. 31, distinguishing Mitchell, Cotts & Co. v. Steel Bros., ubi supra.

^{page 382 note 60} Glasgow Corpn. v. Taylor [1922] 1 A. C. 44.

^{page 382 note 61} Ponting v. Noakes [1894] 2 Q. B. 281. Per Collins J. at p. 291.

^{page 382 note 62} Cooke v. Midland G. W. Ry. of Ireland [1909] A. C. 229.

^{page 382 note 63} Addie and Sons v. Dumbreck (1929) 45 T. L. E. 267, at pp. 268, 270, 272.

^{page 382 note 64} Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503.

^{page 382 note 65} Williams v. Eady (1893) 10 T. L. R. 41.

^{page 382 note 66} Cp. per Hamilton, L.J. in Latham v. R. Johnson & Nephew [1913]Google Scholar K. B. 398.

^{page 382 note 67} Collis v. Selden (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 495.

^{page 382 note 68} Latham v. R. Johnson & Nephew, ubi supra.

^{page 382 note 69} (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330.

^{page 382 note 70} E.g. Carstairs v. Taylor (1871) L. E. 6 Ex. 217; Crompton v. Lea (1874) 19 Eq. 115; Dixon v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 418; Whitmores (Edenbridge), Ltd. v. Stanford [1909] 1 Ch. 427, where Eve, J. spoke of ‘Water, or any other dangerous element’; Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co. [1914] 3Google Scholar K. B. 772.

^{page 382 note 71} Blake v. Land and House Property Corporation (1887) 3 T. L. E. 667.

^{page 382 note 72} De Silva v. Korossa (Ceylon) Rubber Co. (1919) 88 L. J. P. C. 54; Job Edwards v. Birmingham Canal Navigations [1924] 1 K. B. 341, per Scrutton L.J.

^{page 382 note 73} Batcheller v. Tunbridge Wells Gas Co. (1901) 84 L. T. 765.

^{page 382 note 74} Jefferson v. Derbyshire Farmers [1921] 2 K. B. 281, 290 (Atkin L.J.).

^{page 382 note 75} Musgrove v. Pandelis [1919] 2 K. B. 43.

^{page 382 note 76} Piggot v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1846) 3 C. B. 229; Jones v. Festiniog Ry. Co. (1868) L. R. 3 Q. B. 733. Contrast Vaughan v. Taff Vale By Co. (1860) 5 H. & N. 679.

^{page 383 note 77} Powell v. Fall (1880) 5 Q. B. D. 597; Mansel v. Webb (1918) 88 L. J. K. B. 323.

^{page 383 note 78} Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (1918) 34 T. L. B. 500.

^{page 383 note 79} D.N.P. (di-nitro-phenol): Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. [1920] 2Google Scholar K. B. 487; [1921] 2 A. C. 465.

^{page 383 note 80} National Telephone Co. v. Baker [1893] 2 Ch. 186; Eastern and South African Telegraph Co. v. Cape Town Tramways [1902] A. C. 381; cp. Quebec Ry. Co. v. Vandry [1920] A. C. 662.

^{page 383 note 81} Smith v. Great Western Ry. Co. (1926) 135 L. T. 112.

^{page 383 note 82} West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14.

^{page 383 note 83} Humphries v. Cousins (1877) 2 C. P. D. 239; Foster v. Warblington U. C. [1906] 1 K. B. 648; Jones v. Llanrwst U. C, ubi supra.

^{page 383 note 84} Att.-Gen. v. Cory Bros. [1921] 1 A. C. 521. But apparently not rocks in imminent danger of falling: Pontardawe R. D. C. v. Moore-Gwyn (1929) 45 T. L. R. 276.

^{page 383 note 85} Tarry v. Ashton (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 314.

^{page 383 note 86} Firth v. Bowling Iron Co. (1878) 3 C. P. D. 254.

^{page 383 note 87} Hoare & Co. v. McAlpine [1923] 1 Ch. 167.

^{page 383 note 88} Wilson v. Newberry (1871) L. R. 7 Q. B. 31; Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial Board (1878) 4 Ex. D. 5.

^{page 383 note 89} Smith v. Giddy [1904] 2 K. B. 448. Cp. Cheater v. Cater [1918] 1 K. B. 247, per Bankes L.J.

^{page 383 note 90} Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332.

^{page 383 note 91} Smith v. L. & S. W. Ry. Co. (1870) L. E. 6 C. P. 14, 22.

^{page 384 note 92} [1891] 1 Q. B. 86. But this case has been criticized, e.g. by Beven (Negligence, 4th ed. i. 710–2), and Charlesworth (Liability for Dangerous Things, p. 178).

^{page 384 note 93} Cp. O'Connor L.J. in 38 L. Q. R. p. 22.

^{page 384 note 94} Hutchins v. Maunder (1920) 37 T. L. R. 72.

^{page 384 note 95} Musgroce v. Pandelis, ubi supra.

^{page 384 note 96} Phillips v. Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co. [1923] 1 K. B. 539; [1923] K. B. 832.

^{page 384 note 97} Wing v. L G. O. C. [1909] 2 K. B. 652.

^{page 384 note 98} Parker v. L. G. O. C. (1909) 25 T. L. H. 429; 26 T. L. R. 18.

^{page 384 note 99} Ruoff v. Long & Co. [1916] 1 K. B. 148.

^{page 384 note 100} Chichester Corporation v. Foster [1906] 1 K. B. 167.

^{page 384 note 1} Gas Light and Coke Co. v. St. Mary Abbots' (1885) 15 Q. B. D. 1, approved in Chichester Corporation v. Foster, ubi supra.

^{page 384 note 2} Darley Minn Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886) 11 A. C. 127 (Lord Halsbury); Filburn v. The People's Palace and Aquarium Co. (1890) 25 Q. B. D. 258 (Bowen L.J.); Batcheller v. Tunbridge Wells Gas Co. (1901) 84 L. T. 765 (Farwell J.); West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14 (Lord AlverRtone C.J.); Baker v. Snell [1908 2 K. B. 825 (Kennedy L.J.); Lowery v. Walker [1909] 2 K. B. 433 (Pickford J.); White v. Steadman [1913] 3 K. B. 340 (Lush J.); Miles v. Forest Rock Granite Co. (1918) 34 T. L. R. 500 (Swinfen Eady M.R.); Manton v. Brocklebank [1923] 2 K. B. 212 (Lord Sterndale, Warringtqn and Atkin L.J.I.); Hines v. Tousley (1926) 95 L. J. K B. 773 (Bankes L.J.); Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332 (Wright J.). Cp. Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. Co. (1860) 5 H. & N. 679 (Cockburn C.J., Crompton J.). Contra, Nichols v. Marsland (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 255 (Bramwell B.). It is unnecessary here to consider when liability has been imposed or redress denied on account of the nature of the different animals. See Salmond's Torts (7th ed.), $ 127.

^{page 385 note 3} Holgate v. Bleazard [1917] 1 K. B. 443.

^{page 385 note 4} Snow v Whitehead (1884) 27 Ch. D. 588, 591.

^{page 385 note 5} Manton v. Brocklebank [1923] 2 K. B. 212.

^{page 385 note 6} Heath's Garage v. Hodges [1916] 2 K. B. 370.

^{page 385 note 7} Hines v. Tousley (1926) 95 L. J. K. B. 773.

^{page 385 note 8} Evans v. Liverpool Corporation [1906] 1 K. B. 160. Yet knowingly to expose in a public highway a person infected with a contagious disease injuriously to others is an indictable nuisance: R. v. Vantandillo (1815) 4 M. & S. 73.

^{page 385 note 9} Ilford U. C. v. Beal [1925] 1 K. B. 671; St. Anne's Well Brewery Co. v. Roberts (1928) 140 L. T. 1. 1

^{page 385 note 10} Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2 K. B. 633.

^{page 385 note 11} West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14, per Farwell L.J.

^{page 385 note 12} Younger, L.J. in Belvedere Fish Guano Co. v. Rainham Chemical Works [1920] 2Google Scholar K. B. 487, 515.

^{page 385 note 13} Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. [1921] 2 A. C. 465.

^{page 386 note 14} P. 7.

^{page 386 note 15} Latham v. Johnson [1913] 1 K. B. 398.

^{page 386 note 16} R. v. Lister (1857) 7 Cox, 342. Cp. Crowder v. Tinkler (1816) 19 Ves. 617; Hepburn v. Lordan (1865) 2 H. & M. 345; Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. [1921] 2 A. C. 465. And under statute, see Bliss v. Lilley (1862) 3 B. & S. 128.

^{page 386 note 17} [1904] 2 Ir. R. 317, 325—326.

^{page 386 note 18} Williams v. Eady (1893) 10 T. L. R. 41.

^{page 387 note 19} Chichester Corporation v. Foster [1906] 1 K. B. 167, 177—178.

^{page 387 note 20} Cp. Musgrove v. pandelis, ubi supra.

^{page 387 note 21} Darling J.'s predilection for citations from English poetry, which once earned him a judicial rebuke ([1925] 2 K. B. p. 636), seems to have here led him into an unnecessary qualification. Even ‘a little learning’ is not at all times and in all circumstances as dangerous as complete ignorance.

^{page 387 note 22} Supra, p. 385.

^{page 387 note 23} (1912) 106 L. T. 533.

^{page 387 note 24} Even if the damage results indirectly: Dixon v. Metropolitan Board of Works (1881) 7 Q. B. D. 418; Charing Cross Electricity Supply Co. v. Hydraulic Power Co. [1914] 3 K. B. 772 (Bray J.); Att.-Gen. v. Cory Bros. [1921] 1 A. C. 521 (Lord Finlay). But the damage must not be too remote: Cattle v. Stockton Ironworks Co. (1875) L. R. 10 Q. B. 453, and presumably must be the direct consequence of the defendant's act within the rule in Re Polemis [1921] 3 K. B. 560.

^{page 388 note 25} There are many judgments in which no distinction has been taken between things dangerous per se and things dangerous sub modo: e.g. Collis v. Selden (1868) L. R. 3 C. P. 495 (Willes J.); George v. Skivington (1869) L. R. 5 Ex. 1; Heaven v. Pender (1883) 11 Q. B. D. 503 (Cotton and Bowen L.JJ.); Le Lievre v. Gould [1893] 1 Q. B. 491 (Bowen L.J.); Latham v. Johnson [1913] 1 K. B. 398, 419: ‘the chattel muet be something highly dangerous in itself, inherently or from the state in which its owner suffers it to be’ (Hamilton L.J.).

^{page 388 note 26} This could be illustrated from a large number of cases, of which the following, all already cited, are examples in different connections: Hearne v. Gurton, Heaven v. Pender, Ilford U. C. v. Beal, Farrant v. Barnes, MacCarthy v. young, Manton v. Brocklebank, Noble v. Harrison, Redhead v. M. Ry. Co., Williams v. E. India Co. Humphries v. Cousins (1877) 2 C. P. D. 239, which was approved in Firth v. Bowling Iron Co. (1878) 3 C. P. D. 254, is no exception to the general rule, if correctly explained by Branson, J. in Ilford U. C. v. Beal [1925] 1Google Scholar K. B. 671. The judgment of Blackburn, J. in Tarry v. Ashton (1876)Google Scholar 1 Q. B. D. 314 has been preferred to that of Lush and Quain JJ. by Farwell, L.J. in Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2Google Scholar K. B. 633 and Wright, J. in Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2Google Scholar K. B. 332. The judgment of Crompton, J. in Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6Google Scholar E. & B. 471 has been preferred to that of Lord Campbell C.J. and Wightman J. by Willes, J. in Hutchinson v. Guion (1858)Google Scholar 5 C. B. (N.S.) 149, by Vaughan, Williams L.J. in Bamfield v. Goole and Sheffield Transport Co., Ltd. [1910] 2Google Scholar K. B. 94, Atkin, J. in Mitchell, Colts & Co. v. Steel Bros. [1916] 2Google Scholar K. B. 610, and Mr. Carver, Carriage by Sea, art. 278. On the other hand, Fletcher Moulton and Farwell L.JJ. in Bamfield's Case, supra, McCardie, J. (semble) in Transoceanica Societa Italiana v., Shipton [1923] 1Google Scholar K. B. 31, Scrutton, L.J. in G. N. Ry. Co. v. L. E. P. Transport and Depository, Ltd. [1922] 2Google Scholar K. B. 742, and in his book on Charterparties, the writers in Halsbury's Laws of England (iv, 101; xxi, 371; xxvi, 101), and Mr. Leslie in Law of Transport by Railway, p. 31, accept the view of the majority of the Court in that case. If that be correct, we must treat the case of delivery of goods to a common carrier as en exception to the general rule. It is based on an implied warranty in contract.

^{page 388 note 27} See pp. 386—387.

^{page 388 note 28} Mansel v. Webb (1918) 88 L. J. K. B. 323. Bankes, L.J. in Musgrove v. Pandelis [1919] 2Google Scholar K. B. 43, 47, whilst imposing liability for a fire started by a motor-car, takes a different view: ‘The expectation of danger is not the basis of the principle of Rylands v. Fletcher. A thing may be dangerous although the danger is unexpected.’

^{page 388 note 29} Brass v. Maitland (1856) 6 E. & B. 471 (Crompton J.); Tarry v. Ashton (1876) 1 Q. B. D. 314 (Blackburn J.); Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society [1903] 1 K. B. 155 (Mathew L.J.); White v. Steadman [1918] 3 K. B. 340 (Lush J.). It is submitted that, properly considered, Parke, B.'s judgment in Longmeid v. Holliday (1851) 6Google Scholar Ex. 761 is to the same effect. The words ‘although discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care’ must be read in connexion with the later words ‘the defendant not knowing or having any reason to believe it was not perfectly safe.’

^{page 389 note 30} [1913] 3 K. B. 351.

^{page 389 note 31} (1912) 106 L. T. 533, 537.

^{page 389 note 31a} But Mathew, L.J. in Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society [1903] 1Google Scholar K. B. 155 seems to have treated ‘the means of knowing’ as sufficient to found liability.

^{page 389 note 32} [1913] 3 K. B. 340.

^{page 390 note 33} (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330, 338—339.

^{page 390 note 34} (1865) 3 H. & C. 774.

^{page 390 note 35} (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330, 336.

^{page 390 note 36} (I860) 3 B. & S. 62, 83.

^{page 390 note 37} Torts (7th ed.), p. 347. Cp. Jeremiah Smith in Harvard Essays on the Law of Torts, p. 216.

^{page 391 note 38} Liability for Dangerous Things, p. 148.

^{page 391 note 39} (1849) 7 C. B. 515.

^{page 391 note 40} (1863) 15 C. B. (N.S.) 376.

^{page 391 note 41} Cp. Clerk and Lindsell, Torts (8th ed.), p. 386.

^{page 391 note 42} Att.-Gen. v. Tomline (1879) 12 Ch. D. 214 (Fry J.); (1880) 14 Ch. D. 53 (Cotton L.J.).

^{page 391 note 43} [1893] 2 Ch. 186. Cp. Sutton v. Card [1886] W. N. 120, ‘ordinary way of using a man's own property’.

^{page 391 note 44} West v. Bristol Tramways Co. [1908] 2 K. B. 14.

^{page 391 note 45} Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332. But note that Bramwell B. in Bamford v. Turnley, in the passage cited, supra, distinguished ‘ordinary’ from ‘natural’.

^{page 391 note 46} [1913] A. C. 263, 280.

^{page 392 note 47} Rainham Chemical Works v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. [1921] 2 A. C. 465, 471.

^{page 392 note 48} Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2 K. B. 633, 645.

^{page 392 note 49} Noble v. Harrison [1926] 2 K. B. 332, 342; cp. Fletcher, Moulton L.J. in Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2Google Scholar K. B. 633.

^{page 392 note 50} (1875) L. B. 10 Ex. 255, 259. Cp. ‘ordinary and reasonable’ Wright, J. in Gill v. Edouin (1894) 15Google Scholar B. 109, and in Blake v. Woolf [1898]2 Q. B. 426.

^{page 392 note 51} [1913] A. C. 263, 281. Cp. Farwell, L.J. in Barker v. Herbert [1911] 2Google Scholar K. B. 633.

^{page 392 note 52} Aldred's Case (1610) 9 Co. 57; Bamford v. Turnley (1860) 3 B. & S. 62, explaining Jones v. Powell (1628) Palm. 536 Hutton 135; St. Helens Smelting Co. v. Tipping (1865) 11 H. L. C. 642; Broder v. Saillard (1876) 2 Ch. D. 692.

^{page 393 note 53} (1860) 3 B. & S. 62, 83—84.

^{page 393 note 54} (1628) Palm. 536, 538.

^{page 393 note 55} Cp. Dunn v. Birmingham Canal Co. (1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 244:8 Q. B. 42: Crompton v lea (1874) 19 Eq. 115.

^{page 393 note 56} (1876) 2 App. Cas. 95, 99.

^{:page 393 note 57} (1878) 3 C. P. D. 168, 174.

^{page 394 note 58} A similar distinction was recognized in West Cumberland Iron and Steel Co v. Kenyon (1879) 11 Ch. D. 782; Att.-Oen. v. Tomline (1879) 12 Ch. D. 214; (1880) 14 Ch. D. 58.

^{page 394 note 59} (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 131, 141.

^{page 394 note 60} (1901) 84 L. T. 765, 766.

^{page 394 note 61} [1902] A. C. 381.

^{page 394 note 62} [1908] 2 K. B. 14.

^{page 394 note 63} [1911] 2 K. B. 633.

^{page 394 note 64} [1913] 1 K. B. 398.

^{page 394 note 65} [1913] A. C. 263.

^{page 394 note 66} [1919] 1 K. B. 394.

^{page 394 note 67} [1921] 2 A. C. 465.

^{page 394 note 68} [1925] 1 K. B. 671.

^{page 394 note 69} (1928) 140 L. T. 1.

^{page 395 note 70} [1926] 2 K. B. 332.

^{page 395 note 71} [1911] 2 K. B. 633, 642.

^{page 395 note 72} [1913]1 K. B. 398, 406.

^{page 395 note 73} (1928) 140 L. T. p. 8.

^{page 395 note 74} But see also Wright, J. in Noile v. Harrison [1926] 2Google Scholar K. B. 332.

^{page 395 note 75} Pontardawe R. D. C. v. Moore-Gwyn (1929) 45 T. L. E. 276, 277.

^{page 396 note 76} (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 656.

^{page 396 note 77} [1898] 2 Q. B. 426.

^{page 396 note 78} Supra, p. 393.

^{page 396 note 79} Studies in the Law of Torts, pp. 350–1.

^{page 396 note 80} Pp. 368—398.

^{page 396 note 81} Jones v. Powell (1628) Palm. 536.

^{page 396 note 82} Supra, pp. 391—392.

^{page 397 note 83} P.M.-G. v. Latter (1928) 166 L. T. Journal, 152.

^{page 397 note 84} See Holdsworth, History of English Law, viii, 470–1.