Peter v.
Compagniedee Metea-geriee Mari'times
( 26 )
Laws of England, vpl. II., p. 158, which ran: “ If the bill of lading
does not name the consignee, but makes the goods deliverable tobearer" or order, or -assigns the space for the name of the consigneebeing left blank, it may be transferred by delivery without endorse-ment. "
Our attention has been called to a very similar passage in Scrutton'sCharter Parties and Bills of Lading, 5ih ed., p. 140, to the effect,that where the goods are delivered.to a name left, blank, the bill ofvlading passes from hand to hand by mere delivery. These passagesare based on .the authority of Sewell v. Burdick,1 which in turn reliesupon the case of Ldckbarrow v. Mason * In the present case the billof lading appears to have been sent by the consignor to the CharteredBank of India in Colombo with instructions to collect the paymentand hand over the bill of lading on receipt of the same. The bankdid this, and endorsed it to the plaintiff in the present action. Itwould seem then that the plaintiff is the legal owner of the goods, andentitled as against the consignor to the delivery of the goods. Thejudgment in favour of the plaintiff is therefore in order, and I woulddismiss the appeal, with costs.
Pouter .J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.