What does the word ‘property’ encompass in the context of the assignment of a bill of lading? Is it limited to the general property in the goods, that is, the legal title to the goods as is transferred by a sale? Or does it include the special property which signifies the right to possession?
Held: It should be limited to the passing of the general property. Bills of lading are often used as security documents facilitating the financing by banks of merchants’ sale transactions. A bank’s interest is to use the possessory right to the document and the goods it represents as security; its interest is not to enter into contractual relations with the carrier, still less, to undertake contractual obligations towards the carrier. a transaction of pledge accompanied by the endorsement of the bill of lading over to the pledgee did not come within the scope of s.1 and did not transfer to the pledgee any contractual rights nor subject the pledgee to any contractual liabilities under the bill of lading. A person who had had the bill of lading endorsed to him while the goods were at sea and who then chose to take advantage of his possession of the bill of lading to ‘take the position of full proprietor upon himself with its corresponding burdens if he thinks fit’ ‘and that he actually does so as between himself and the shipowner if and when he claims and takes delivery of the goods by virtue of that title.’
Judges:
Earl of Selborne LC
Citations:
(1884) 10 AC 74
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Smurthwaite v Wilkins 1862
The endorser of a bill of lading is not liable after he has endorsed over the bill of lading to another who is liable; the shipper remains liable as an original party to the contract. ‘Looking at the whole statute it seems to me that the obvious . .
Cited by:
Cited – Borealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others and Bergesen Dy A/S Berge Sisar Dorealis Ab v Stargas Limited and Others HL 27-Mar-2001
The ship came to port, and samples of the cargo proved contaminated. The carrier asserted that the consignee was to be deemed to have demanded delivery, and had so assumed the risk. The court found that the mere taking of samples was not such a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.194549