In an action by a shipowner against consignees to recover the balance of freight of a parcel of jute carried from Calcutta to Dundee, the latter claimed that they were entitled to deduct from the freight the amount sued for, being the value of twelve bales of jute acknowledged in the bill of lading to have been shipped on their account at Calcutta, but which were not delivered at Dundee.
The evidence in the case, apart from the bill of lading and the tallies and other documents upon which it was founded, was to the effect that all the jute, including the defenders’ consignment, actually shipped at Calcutta, had been delivered at Dundee, but there was no evidence led by the pursuers to account for the manner in which the alleged difference between the cargo acknowledged to have been received in the bill of lading and that actually received had arisen.
Held (reversing the judgment of the Second Division) that the pursuers had failed to prove a short shipment, and were liable to the defenders for the value of the hales not delivered.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Halsbury) and Lords Watson, Shand, and Davey
Citations:
[1895] UKHL 96, 33 SLR 96
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Scotland
Transport
Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634060
