Jones v European and General Express Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1920 |
| Date | 21 June 1920 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
King's Bench Division
Rowlatt, J.
Jones v. European and General Express Company
Carriage of goods — Shipping agents — Obligations
138 MARITIME LAW CASES. K.B. Div.] Jones v. European and General express Company. [K.B. Div. HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. KING'S BENCH DIVISION. May 20 and June 21, 1920. (Before Rowlatt, J.) Jones v. European and General Express Company, (a) Carriage of goods-Shipping agents-Obligations- Loss of goods-Pilferage-Insurance.-Liability of the forwarding agent. In July 1918 the plaintiff forwarded to the defendants, who were shipping agents, eight bales of cloth to be shipped to a French port and thence to be forwarded by rail to a consignee at Lyons. The defendants undertook to have the goods insured against pilferage during transit from warehouse to warehouse. They held an open policy of insurance under which they were able to declare the goods in question and obtain the protection of the underwriters' undertaking. The defendants made the usual and proper arrangements with steamships and railways for the carriage of the goods in question to their destination, and also made proper arrangements with the underwriters for the insurance of the goods during transit. While the goods were in the custody of the French Customs' authorities two bales were lost, and only six bales reached their destination. It was thought that the two bales were stolen. There was no evidence of any negligence or default on the part of the defendants having caused the loss of the goods. Held, that the obligation imposed upon the defendants was, not to carry the goods, but to make arrangements with the carriers, and to make such arrangements as might be necessary for the inter-mtdiate steps in the journey between the different sets of carriers and others who had successive possession of the goods. As to the contract to insure, the defendants were only obliged to place the plaintiffs' risk with the underwriters, for whose subsequent actions they were not responsible. In discharging these obligations the defendants had shown no negligence. Action tried by Rowlatt, J., sitting as a commercial judge, without a jury. The plaintiff, who was a woollen manufacturer carrying on business at Leicester, sued the defendants, who were shipping and forwarding agents, for the loss of two bales of cloth during transit from Leicester to Lyons. The plaintiff's case was that he employed the defendants to forward eight bales of cloth to a consignee at Lyons. In July 1918...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Moto Vespa S.A. v MAT (Brittania Express) Ltd
-
Gillespie Bros. & Company Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd
...the transhipment 7 The position of a forwarding agent was described by Mr. JusticeRowlett in Jones v. European Estates Co. (1920) 25 Commercial Cases 296, applied by this Court in Marston Excelsior v. Arbuckle Smith & Co. 1971 Lloyds Rep. 306. They usually act as agents for the owners of th......
-
Geofizika DD v MMB Internationa Ltd and Another
...of the insurance contract: see Marston Excelsior v Arbuckle Smith & Co [1971] 2 Lloyd's Rep 306 at 310 and 312; Jones v European & General Express Company Ltd (1920) 4 Lloyd's Rep 127. Clause 11 of the BIFA terms made express provision for the obtaining of insurance, but it is not necessary......
- Harris (L.) (Harella) Ltd v Continental Express Ltd