The House of Lords (Scotch and Irish Appeals), REPORTED BY JAMES EYRE THOMPSON, BARRISTER-AT-LAW. EDITOR: JOHN MEWS. SUB-EDITORS: W. E. GORDON AND A. J. SPENCER. VOLUME LXVII. [CONTEMPORARY WITH LAW REP. [1898] A. C.] LELAND STANFORD JUN PUBLISHED FOR THE PROPRIETORS AT THE OFFICE OF THE LAW JOURNAL REPORTS, 119 CHANCERY LANE, LONDON 1898. [IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.] 1897. Nov. 16. CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (appellants) v. MULHOLLAND or WARWICK (respondent).* Negligence - Railway Company — One Company Using the Trucks of AnotherDefect in Truck Breach of Implied Duty. The respondent's husband, who was a servant of the G. Railway, was killed in consequence of the defective condition of a truck belonging to the appellants, which had been lent, in the ordinary course of railway exchange, to the G. Railway for the conveyance of goods to one of the latter's customers-Held, that the appellants were under no liability to the respondent. Heaven v. Pender (52 L. J. Q.B. 702; 11 Q.B. D. 503) distinguished. Decision of the Second Division of the COURT OF SESSION (34 Sc. L. R. 317) reversed. This action was commenced on July 7, 1896, by petition in the Sheriff Court of Dumfries and Galloway, by the respondent Sarah Mulholland or Warwick, Warwick, against the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company and the Caledonian Coram, The Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury), Lord Herschell, Lord Macnaghten, Lord Morris, and Lord Shand. VOL. 67.-P.C. Railway Company to recover damages for the death of her husband, Andrew Warwick, who was killed on October 22, 1895, by reason, it was alleged, of the negligence of the said companies or one of them. The respondent claimed 500l. against both the above-named companies, jointly and severally, or otherwise severally and alternatively against the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company only, the sum of 1407. 88. under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880. The Caledonian Railway Company objected to any issue as against them, and contended that the averments of the respondent were irrelevant and insufficient to support the conclusions of the action as against that company. The other defender, the Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company, did not object to the relevancy. The question was argued before the Second Division. Their Lordships were divided in opinion, the Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Young holding that the case must go to trial against both of the defenders, while Lord Trayner was of opinion that the respondent had averred no case relevant to infer liability on the part of the appellant company. Andrew Warwick was at the time of B |