Craig Line Steamship Co., Ltd (S.S. "Craigforth") v. North British Storage and Transit Co., et e contra [1920] ScotLR 132 (17 November 1920)

Craig Line Steamship Co., Ltd (S.S. "Craigforth") v. North British Storage and Transit Co., et e contra [1920] ScotLR 132 (17 November 1920)

A bill of lading containing the qualification 'weight, quality, quantity, and contents unknown' is not prima facie evidence of the quantity shipped; the burden of proof for short delivery lies on the cargo owner, not the shipowner. The evidence did not establish short delivery or damage by heating due to shipowner's negligence. Interest on outlays is allowed only for the commission to Galatz, not for all expenses, due to the exceptional delay caused by the war.

Citation
[1920] ScotLR 132
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: Craig Line Steamship Company, Limited (S. S. 'Craigforth'); Defender/reclaimer: North British Storage and Transit Company; Official Liquidator (craig Line Steamship Company): Mr J.R. Fogo, C.A.
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
17 November 1920
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Shipping Dispute) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) in Inner House, After Proof and Conjoined Actions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Lord Ordinary affirmed.
Legal Topics
Bills of Lading, Burden of Proof, Short Delivery, Qualified Bill of Lading, Freight Claims, Damages for Cargo Loss, Interest on Judicial Expenses
Shipping Law Commercial Law Evidence Bills of Lading Burden of Proof Short Delivery Qualified Bill of Lading Freight Claims +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Line Steamship Company, Limited (S. S. 'Craigforth')

Pursuer/respondent

North British Storage and Transit Company

Defender/reclaimer

Mr J.R. Fogo, C.A.

Official Liquidator (craig Line Steamship Company)

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Shipping Dispute) / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) in Inner House, After Proof and Conjoined Actions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a bill of lading qualified with 'weight, quality, quantity, and contents unknown' is prima facie evidence of quantity shipped and who bears the onus of proof for short delivery; Whether shipowners are liable for alleged damage to cargo by heating; Entitlement to interest on outlays in judicial expenses due to extraordinary delay (war)

Ratio Decidendi

A bill of lading containing the qualification 'weight, quality, quantity, and contents unknown' is not prima facie evidence of the quantity shipped; the burden of proof for short delivery lies on the cargo owner, not the shipowner. The evidence did not establish short delivery or damage by heating due to shipowner's negligence. Interest on outlays is allowed only for the commission to Galatz, not for all expenses, due to the exceptional delay caused by the war.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Lord Ordinary affirmed.

Orders

  • Craig Line Steamship Company and liquidator entitled to expenses against North British Storage and Transit Company and others since 8 April 1913.
  • Entitled to interest at 5% per annum on outlays made in connection with the commission to Galatz from 8 April 1913 to date of judgment.