Mustard v. Paterson [1922] ScotLR 114 (23 November 1922)

Mustard v. Paterson [1922] ScotLR 114 (23 November 1922)

The edict Nautae, Caupones, Stabularii applies to livery stable keepers in Scotland, imposing strict liability for loss or damage to property in their custody unless the loss is due to act of God or the King's enemies. The defender failed to prove that the injury to the pursuer's horse was due to such an exception or to absence of fault. Therefore, the defender is liable for the loss.

Citation
[1922] ScotLR 114
Parties
Pursuer: William Mustard; Defender: Alexander Paterson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 November 1922
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House Second Division
Outcome
appeal dismissed; decree for pursuer affirmed
Legal Topics
Liability of Stablekeepers, Nautae, Caupones, Stabularii Edict, Bailment, Presumption of Negligence, Act of God Exception
Contract Tort Commercial Law Liability of Stablekeepers Nautae, Caupones, Stabularii Edict Bailment Presumption of Negligence Act of God Exception

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Mustard

Pursuer

Alexander Paterson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Sheriff to Court of Session Inner House Second Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the edict Nautae, Caupones, Stabularii apply to livery stable keepers in Scotland?
  2. 2 Is the defender liable for injury to the pursuer's horse while in his custody under the edict or at common law?
  3. 3 What is the scope of exceptions (act of God, inevitable accident) to liability under the edict?

Ratio Decidendi

The edict Nautae, Caupones, Stabularii applies to livery stable keepers in Scotland, imposing strict liability for loss or damage to property in their custody unless the loss is due to act of God or the King's enemies. The defender failed to prove that the injury to the pursuer's horse was due to such an exception or to absence of fault. Therefore, the defender is liable for the loss.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; decree for pursuer affirmed

Orders

  • Decree granted in favour of pursuer against defender for £69, 0s. 6d.
  • Defender found liable for the loss of the horse under the edict.