Thrige v United Shipping Company Ltd: CA 1924

The plaintiff sold machinery to a purchaser in England. The terms of sale were cash against documents. Thrige took a straight bill of lading which named the Victoria Company as the consignee without any reference to ‘or order or assigns’. The goods were discharged at their final destination without the bill of lading, and Thrige thereby lost the value of the shipment.
Held: No cause of action had been shown against the defendant since it acted as a mere agent without possession of the goods. The court asked what might have arisen if the carrier had been sued. The bill of lading was odd being taken neither to the shipper’s nor to the consignee’s order. The court expressed doubt whether a carrier was in breach if he delivered goods without production of the bill where the bill was made out to a named consignee and property in the goods passed on shipment.

Scrutton LJ
(1924) 18 Ll L Rep 6
England and Wales
Appeal fromThrige v United Shipping Company Limited 1923
. .

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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Contract

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.181887