1. Livingstone & The Rawyards Coal Company PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Case: Livingstone & The Rawyards Coal Company Court: Judges: Date: Act: S.O.F:

Relief Sought: Issue: History

House of Lords Lord Blackburn Feb 13th 1880 N/A 1. Livingstone (appellant) bought a feu and some 30 miner’s cottages for 80 pounds in 1869. 2. A (falsely) assumed that the minerals (the coal) under it had been reserved by the superior. 3. Superior died and new superior thought that this was the case as well. 4. Superior leased all the coal in the area, including the coal under the land, to the respondents at a royalty of 6 pennies per ton. a. Both were ignorant that the appellant actually had rights to the coal. 5. The Respondents removed 5895 tons of coal from under the Appellants land. 6. Once this was done and disposed of, they, the Appellant, after looking at his title, realised that he had rights to the coal. 7. Appellant then claimed damages for: a. The value of the coal (market value – costs). b. Way-leave for the respondent bringing carts across his land. c. Damages done to the miners’ cottages. 8. Respondent’s offered £450 10s but this was rejected. 9. History 1: Lord Ordinary a. Allowed £515 12s 1d for the coal. b. Disallowed damage because it would have happened if the appellant had removed the coal himself. c. Disallowed a claim for £110 10s 9d for the way leave. 10. History 2: First Division a. Reversed the amount for coal and set it at £171 7s 6d for the coal, b. Allowed £200 for damages to pay for the damage to the surface What is the appropriate measure of damages? Focusing on First division:  Appellant said he was entitled to the value of the coal minus cost of severance and brining it to the surface.  Notes Jegon v Vivian, where the coal is taken by fraud or negligence, the proper estimate of damage is the

Case: Livingstone & The Rawyards Coal Company

Decision: Judges’ reasoning:

value of the coal when gotten, without deducting the expense of getting it: Martin v Porter, Wild v Holt and Phillips v Homfray.  BUT Where taken by mistake, a milder rule applies. Morgan v Powell D was not allowed the cost of severance.  Wood v Morewood, If the jury thought it was an accident, then they might give the fair value of the coals as if the coal field had been purchased by the plaintiff.  It was no answer that the defendant could not mine the coal themselves. Affirms Court of Session and allows £371 7s 6d. Earl Cairns, L.C. (Lord Chancellor): Basics:  First point about way leave not mentioned at First Division so not dealt with here.  States Material Facts  Mentions that there was no element of malice or wilful trespass.  Just have to find out the value of the coal that was taken. Court of Session:  Like the Court of session calculation.  Says the value is that which he could have obtained from somebody else who would have come and taken the coal as it stood and worked it and turned it into an account.  Mentions that they had a witness Mr Rankine who talked about selling the coal to other land owners.  Said not to take less than £171 7s 6d plus damage to the surface. For that purpose it’ll be £200.  Thinks this total of £371 7s 6d should stand. Lord Hatherley:  Also likes the Court of Session total.  States that if fraud, then the person who commits this gets punished, no allowance is made for what would have happened if he hadn’t been fraudulent.  Mentions that in this case there was no fraud. Principle of damages:  “Owner shall be repossessed so far as possible of that which was his property and that, in respect of which has been destroyed, etc, there shall be such compensation made to him as will in fairness between both parties and allowances will be made”  Notes each is case by case.

Case: Livingstone & The Rawyards Coal Company  Give back to the owner the full value of that which cannot be restored to him. Also states the facts.  Notes that he doesn’t think there was any way for the Appellant to make a profit himself removing the coal.  Notes that the Appellant didn’t make any objection when they were taking the coal, this was before he knew it was his property.  Doesn’t think it unfair for the Appellant to get the same terms as those that were around him got.  Doesn’t think that the Appellant would have left the coal as a support for his houses. Damages to calculate  Says it was not argued in the court below and that is that.  Notes that the only damages is the value of the coal plus the damages to the surface.  Agrees with the court below. Lord Blackburn:  Also likes the court below.  States the principles of injury (Pg. 8)  Also notes there was no fault. Old Rule:  Notes that there was an old rule that was that the owners of the thing was to be paid the value of the chattel at the time it was converted and it would be wrong to allow the wrongdoer anything for the mischief he had done or expense incurred to convert it.  If innocent though, you should treat it as a fair price that the person would have got.  This rule was followed in Jegon v Vivian, followed in court of chancery and hasn’t been questioned.  Notes both the courts below did this more or less but got difference results so that it the issue in this case. Present case:  Coal was sold for £1768 5s 10d with £515 12s 1d profit which is what they say the Appellant is entitled to.  If you could not get the market value, then this would probably be correct.  Notes the Lord Ordinary saying that A could not mine the coal himself.  Thinks this was an error, and that thinks that Lord Ordinary thought he was bound by things he was not and made a mistake.  Says that the Court of Session amount is the correct amount.  Note, Royalty is not the measure of damages, it is only evidence of the value which is the measure of the damages.

Case: Livingstone & The Rawyards Coal Company Point of Law:

1. Affirms if you take with fault then you pay what the property was worth at the time it was taken not including any expenses. 2. Damages should be: "that sum of money which will put the party who has been injured in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation.” Lord Blackburn. 3. In this case, that is the damage done to the houses plus the fair price the Appellant would have received if he had also sold the coal to the respondents. 4. This measure is not specifically the royalty, royalty is only evidence as to the value....