Part YII.
— Forms
of Action.
49
Court that he has a cause of action fit to be prosecuted therein {j). Lastly, where any action which could have been commenced in the county court {k) is brought in the Hioh Court, then the plaintiff's right to costs, or to costs upon any particular scale, will depend primarily upon the amount recovered by him, the crucial amount varying according as the action is one "founded on contract" or
founded on
tort "
^^gt.
3.
Modern
A ction s,
(/).
An
action against a livery stable keeper for negligence in the Actions held care of a horse standing in his stable for reward to him was held to q° ^^^^ract^^ So too were an action against be an action founded on contract (m). a hackney carriage proprietor for not carrying securely certain luggage belonging to the hirer of the carriage (n), an action against an innkeeper for not keeping securely a traveller's property (o), an action against a railway company as common carriers for losing goods intrusted to them for carriage (p), and an action against an architect for not exercising due skill and care in supervising a builder's
work
(q).
On
the other hand, an action for the wrongf id detention of pfoods Actions held is founded on tort (r). So too are an action by a passenger against a tort railway company through the negligence of whose servants he has been injured (s), an action against carriers for dehvering goods to the original consignees after receiving notice to " stop " such goods in transitu {t), an action in respect of injuries received by a horse intrusted to the defendant for agistment (a), an action against a house-owner for removing before the commencement of a lease granted to a tenant fixtures which by the agreement for such lease were to remain on the premises during the term (h), and an action against an auctioneer for reselling in error to a third person goods bought at an auction by the plaintiff (c). Each case must, it has been said {d), be decided as it arises, and Mode of it is difficult to lay down any definite principle but the substance
County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 43), s. 66. The following actions cannot be commenced in the county court actions for libel, slander, seduction, breach of promise of marriage actions concerning the title to any toll, fair, market, or franchise, or to any corporeal or incorporeal hereditament (except those within sect. 60 of the County Courts Act, 1888). {I) Ibid., s. 116, as amended by County Courts Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 42), s. 3. (m) Legye v. Tucker (1856), 1 H. & N. 500; but see now Turner v. Stallibrass, (./)
{Jc)
[1898] 1 Q. B. 56. (n) Baylis v. Lintott (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 345. (o) Morgan v. Ravey (1861), 6 H. & N. 265. {p) Fleming Y. Manchester, IShpffield, and Lincolnshire Bail Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 81. Having regard to this decision and Baylis v. Lintott, supra, Tattan v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1860), 2 E. & E. 844, can apparently be no longer ,
relied on. {q) (r)
Ste/jes v.
Bryant
Y.
Lngram
(1903), 19 T. L. E. 534. Herbert {1818), 3 C. P. D. 389; but see pp. 41, 44, ante,
and
p. 50, post.
Taylor Y. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Rail. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 134 ; Metropolitan Rail. Co., ibid. 944. See also Bretherton v. Wood (1821), 3 Brod. & B. 54 Lyles v. Southend-on-Sea Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 1. (t) Pontifex V. Midland Rail. Co. (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 23. ia) Tamer v. Stallibrass, supra. (b) Sachs V. Henderson, [1902] 1 K. B. 612. (c) Cohen v. Foster (1892), 66 L. T. 616. (d) Per EOMER, L.J., in Sachs y. Henderson, supra, at p. 616. (s)
l<:elly Y.
H.L.
—
I.
V
