The Stettin: 1889

A bill of lading was issued by the owners of a German flag vessel and covered carriage from London to Stettin. It was made out to a named consignee ‘or to his or their assigns’ who was the agent for Julius Manasse in Breslau, and was instructed by the shipper on arrival in Stettin to arrange for the goods to be sent on by lighter to Manasse. No bill of lading was produced by him for delivery, however, and the shipper was not paid. The shipper sued the carrier for misdelivery of the goods. The defendant shipowner’s said that where there was a named consignee ‘or order’ but the consignee did not endorse the bill (as in that case), the effect was the same as a straight bill of lading. The shipowner could deliver to the consignee without production of a bill of lading unless told by the shipper not to do so, taking the risk, presumably as against an endorsee, of whether there had been an endorsement or not.
Held: German law does not essentially differ from English law, according to which a shipowner may not deliver goods to the consignee without production of the bill of lading. The shipowner must take the consequences.
(1889) 14 PD 142
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedJ I MacWilliam Co Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company S A, ‘The Rafaela S’ CA 16-Apr-2003
Machinery was damaged whilst in transit, on the second of two legs. The contract described itself as a through bill of lading, but the port of discharge was not the final destination.
Held: The contract was a straight bill of lading. A . .
CitedJ I MacWilliam Company Inc v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; The ‘Rafaela S’ HL 16-Feb-2005
A US company bought a printing machine and ancillary equipment on CIF terms from an English company. The sellers consigned the goods to the buyers. The carriers were a container liner operator and the demise charterers of the vessels ‘Rosemary’ and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 March 2021; Ref: scu.181894