Hogarth & Sons v. Leith Cotton Seed Oil Co. [1909] ScotLR 593 (18 March 1909)

Hogarth & Sons v. Leith Cotton Seed Oil Co. [1909] ScotLR 593 (18 March 1909)

The alleged custom was not definite or certain, was not uniform, universal, or notorious, and was inconsistent with the express terms of the contract of affreightment. Therefore, it could not be imported into the contract, and the consignees were not liable for the expenses of shedding and sorting the cargo.

Citation
[1909] ScotLR 593
Parties
Pursuer: Hugh Hogarth & Sons; Defender: Leith Cotton Seed Oil Company
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 March 1909
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to; pursuers found liable in expenses.
Legal Topics
Bills of Lading, Custom of Port, Delivery From Ship's Tackles, Mixed Cargo, Shedding Charges
Shipping Law Carriage of Goods Contract Law Bills of Lading Custom of Port Delivery From Ship's Tackles Mixed Cargo Shedding Charges

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Hogarth & Sons

Pursuer

Leith Cotton Seed Oil Company

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a custom of the port of Leith entitles shipowners to land mixed cargo into shed and charge consignees for shedding and sorting expenses
  2. 2 Whether such custom can be imported into the contract of affreightment under bills of lading specifying delivery from ship's tackles

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged custom was not definite or certain, was not uniform, universal, or notorious, and was inconsistent with the express terms of the contract of affreightment. Therefore, it could not be imported into the contract, and the consignees were not liable for the expenses of shedding and sorting the cargo.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; interlocutor adhered to; pursuers found liable in expenses.

Orders

  • Pursuers not entitled to recover shedding charges from defenders.
  • Pursuers entitled only to decree for £4, 3s. 9d. after deduction of extra weighing charges.