Great Northern Railway v. Swaffield 1874(Case Summary)

This case established the principle of necessity of agency in English law, where a party can act on behalf of another to protect property in urgent situations, creating obligations for reasonable expenses incurred.

Facts of Great Northern Railway v Swaffield

1. Swaffield (the defendant) arranged for his horse to be transported by Great Northern Railway (the plaintiff) to a specific station.
2. Upon arrival, there was no one to receive the horse, and the railway company had to arrange for its accommodation at a local stable.
3. The railway company incurred costs for stabling and sought reimbursement from Swaffield.
4. Swaffield refused to pay, arguing that no prior agreement existed for such expenses.

Issues framed

1. Whether a carrier has the authority to act as an agent of necessity in protecting the property of another?
2. Whether the carrier can recover reasonable expenses incurred for safeguarding the property?

Judgment of Great Northern Railway v Swaffield 

The court relied on the doctrine of agency of necessity, which allows a person to act on behalf of another without prior authorization in situations of urgent need. The principle is rooted in equity and common law, ensuring that property is safeguarded when immediate action is required.

The court held that Great Northern Railway acted reasonably and in good faith to protect the horse. The railway company was deemed to have acted as an agent of necessity, as the situation required urgent measures to prevent harm to the property. Swaffield, as the owner of the horse, was obligated to reimburse the reasonable costs incurred by the railway company.

The court ruled in favor of Great Northern Railway, affirming that the expenses for stabling the horse were recoverable.