A brewery company had habitually shipped beer by the appellants’ steamships under bills of lading which provided for a lien to the shipowners for unsatisfied freight due either from shipper or consignee in respect of other shipments. The brewery’s debenture holders brought an action against it, and W. was appointed receiver and manager of the brewery company. W. sent an order to the appellants to ship some beer consigned to the company, c/o the company’s agents at Malta, signing the order in name of the brewery company ‘by W., Receiver and Manager.’ The shipowners having carried the beer under a bill of lading in their usual form claimed a lien over it for arrears of freight due in respect of previous shipments by the company before W. was appointed receiver.
Held (diss. Lords Shaw and Mersey) that the company and W. the receiver were distinct; that the receiver was both shipper and consigner, and by the form of his order had given notice of this fact to the appellants, and that accordingly the appellants were not entitled to a lien under the bill of lading for arrears of freight.
Judges:
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), the Earl of Halsbury, Lords Ashbourne, Atkinson, Shaw, and Mersey
Citations:
[1911] UKHL 630, 49 SLR 630
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Company
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.619203