Grange v Taylor
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 1904 |
| Date | 21 March 1904 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
King's Bench Division
Bigham, J.
Grange and Co. v. Taylor
Porteous v. WatneyDID=ASPMELR 39 L. T. Rep. 195 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 34 3 Q. B. Div. 534
Petrocochino v. Bott L. Rep. 9 C. P., at p. 361
Bill of lading Construction Bulk cargo
MARITIME LAW CASES. 559 K.B. Div.] Grange and Co. v. Taylor. [K.B. Div. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE KING'S BENCH DIVISION. March 10, 11, 14, and 21, 1904. (Before Bigham. J.) Grange and Co. v. Taylor. (a) Bill of lading - Construction - Bulk cargo - Un-divided portions of bulk - " Each bill of lading to bear its proportion of damage " - Error in apporiioniiiy?? Bills of lading for undivided portions of a bulk cargo of grain contained the following clause and note in margin: "If the parcel herein signed for constitutes part of a larger bulk shipped without separation into parcels, as per bills of lading, each bill of lading shall bear its due proportion of shortage or damage and (or) sweep-tngs,if any:" "Part of a parcel, shipped without separation. Each bill of lading to bear its proportion of shortage and damage, if any." By an error in apportioning damaged grain one consignee received a full consignment of sound grain. One of the oilier consignees, refusing to accept more than his proportionate share of damaged grain, received a consignment which was 108 quarters short. Held, in an action for short delivery, that the error was caused by the consignees' agents, and that the clause in the bills of lading cast no duty on the shipowner to apportion, the good and unsound grain. Claim against shipowner for short delivery of a quantity of maize shipped under bills of lading on board the Palestrina and discharged at the Victoria Docks, and for breach of contract contained in the bills of lading and for conversion of the plaintiffs' goods. The cargo of maize was in bulk, and bills of lading were given in respect of undivided portions. The plaintiffs were indorsees of two of the bills of lading. The bills of lading contained the following clause and impressed note in the margin: If the parcel herein signed for constitutes part of larger bulk shipped without separation iota parcels, as per bills of lading, each bill of lading shall bear its due proportion of shortage or damage and (or) sweepings, if any Part of a, parcel, shipped without separation. Each bill of lading to bear its proportion of shortage and damage, if any. By an error in apportioning, one consignee received a complete consignment of sound grain and the plaintiffs, refusing to accept more than their proportion of daroaged grain, brought an action for short delivery. The facts sufficiently appear in the following considered judgment. Hamilton, K.C. and Leek for the plaintiffs;?? The following cases and Act were cited: Porteous v. Watney,39 I. T. Bep. 195 ; 4 Asp. Mar. Law Caa. 34; 3 Q. B. Div. 534, at p. 542, per Brett, L. J.; Petrocochino v. BM, 30 L. T. Rap. 840; 2 Asp. Mar. Law Can. 310 ; L. Eep. 9 C. P. 355; Spicer v. Martm, 00 L. T. Bep. 546; 14 App. C&3. 12 ; Nottingham Patent Brick and Tile Company v. Butler, 15 Q H. Div. 261, at p. 268, per Willes, J.; ColVins v. Castle, 57 L. T. Rep. 764 ; 36 Ch. Div. 243; Thn London and St. _?? act 1864 (27 & 28 Viot. o. 178), a. 120. Cur. adv. vult. Bicjham, J. - This is an action by indorsees of ills of Tailing "against shipowner to recover amages for short delivery of a quantity (108 'as delivered to the dock, company, and that they ere tbe agents of the plaintiffs to receive it. The efendants' ship, the Palestrina, took on board a. ;rge quantity of maize in bulk at Odessa to be irried to London. The shipper asked for and stained from the defendants several bills of ding, each being for an undivided portion of the ilk. This was done to facilitate the sale of the aize. The bills of lading contained the following ause: " If the parcel herein signed for consti-ites part of a larger bulk shipped without paration into parcels, as per bills of lading, each 11 of lading shall bear its due proportion of lOrtage or damage and (or) sweepings, if any "; (a) Reported by W. Trevor Turton, Esq.. Barrister-at-Law. MARITIME LAW CASES. 560 K.B. Div.] Grange and Go. v. Taylor. [K.B. Div. and in the margin th - re was an impressed note: " Part of a parcel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sucre Export SA v Northern River Shipping Ltd ('the Sormovskiy 3068') [QBD (Admiralty)]
...79; [1993] 2 Ll Rep 542 (CA). Glyn Mills Currie & Co v East and West India Dock CoELR (1882) 7 App Cas 591. Grange & Co v TaylorUNK (1904) 9 Com Cas 223. Houda, TheUNK [1993] 1 Ll Rep 333. Holt & Holt Ltd v Union Castle Steamship Co LtdENR [1901] SC 38. Jaederen, TheELR [1892] P 351. London......
- Sucre Export SA v Northern Shipping Ltd (The Sormovskiy 3068)