Wooster v. Tarr
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover for the carriage of mackerel from Halifax to Boston. It was agreed in the superior court that the defendants shipped the mackerel at Halifax, upon a vessel of which the plaintiffs were part owners, said Wooster being master, under a bill of lading in the usual form, to be delivered at Boston “ unto Messrs. R. A. Howes & Co. or to their assigns, he or they paying freight for said goods,” &e.
Read the full summary
Contract to recover for the carriage of mackerel from Halifax to Boston. It was agreed in the superior court that the defendants shipped the mackerel at Halifax, upon a vessel of which the plaintiffs were part owners, said Wooster being master, under a bill of lading in the usual form, to be delivered at Boston “ unto Messrs. R. A. Howes & Co. or to their assigns, he or they paying freight for said goods,” &e. On the arrival of the vessel at Boston, Wooster was informed by Howes & Co. that the mackerel had been sold “ to arrive,” to a person to whom they requested him to deliver them. The…
1Opinion of the CourtBigelow, C. J.
The question raised in this case is very fully discussed in Blanchard v. Page, 8 Gray, 281, 286, 290-295. It is there stated to be the settled doctrine that a bill of lading is a written simple contract between a shipper of goods and the ship-owner; the latter to carry the goods, and the former to pay the stipulated compensation when the service is performed. Of the correctness of this statement there can be no doubt. The shipper or consignor, whether the owner of the goods shipped or not, is the party with whom the owner or master enters into the contract of affreightment. It is he that…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1918