Слике страница
PDF
ePub

make the risk speculative. Held, that the practice was reasonable, and that the underwriters were not liable in consequence of the concealment (n).

2. On the 25th of July, a ship while in her port of loading was driven on a rock during a storm, but contrived to get off without apparently having suffered material damage. The master subsequently wrote to the owners, but did not mention the accident. The letter reached them on the 5th of October. On the 25th of October the owners effected a policy on the ship at and from her port of loading to her port of discharge. On the ship arriving at her port of discharge the master made a protest detailing the accident, and stating that the planks of the ship's bottoin must have been chafed, and her bottom otherwise injured by striking on the rock. Held, that the master not having communicated the accident, the antecedent damage was an implied exception out of the policy; and that, therefore, the owners could not recover as for an average loss arising from the accident (o).

3. Goods were insured from London to Jamaica generally. The goods were destined to a particular bay in the island, and the usual course in such cases was for the ship to proceed to an adjoining port and there to tranship the cargo into shallops. The underwriters were not informed of this custom. Held, nevertheless, that they were liable for a loss occurring after such transhipment on board the shallops (p).

4. An owner of a ship had received a letter from the master informing him that he had been forced to have a survey of the ship at Trinidad on account of her bad character. The survey which accompanied the letter gave the ship a good character. Held, that the non-disclosure of such letter and survey to the underwriters did not vacate the policy, though it was proved that the premium would have been enhanced by the fact, if communicated (2).

6. The plaintiff purchased at Liverpool at a public auction the Georgia, and converted her into a merchant vessel. In August, 1874, through his London broker, the plaintiff insured the ship with the defendant. The particulars furnished to the defendant were—“Georgia s.s., chartered on a voyage from Liverpool to Lisbon and the Portuguese settlements on the west coast of Africa and back.” That the Georgia had been a cruiser in the service of the Confederate States in 1863--4, and that in 1864 she had been

(11) Ionides v. Pender, L. R., 9 Q. B. 531.

(0) Gladstone v. king, 1 M. & S. 35.

(p) Stewart v. Bell, 5 B. & Ald. 238.

(9) Haywood v. Rodgers, 4 East, 590.

dismantled in Liverpool, were facts of public notoriety. The vessel on sailing from Liverpool was immediately captured by a United States frigate. In an action on the policy, the jury found that the defendant was not aware he was insuring the Georgia, but that he had abundant means of identifying the ship from his previous knowledge, coupled with the particulars given by the plaintiff. Held, that the defendant was not liable on the policy (r).

6. Before effecting a policy the London broker inquired of the plaintiff at Bristol whether the ship proposed to be insured was at sea without convoy. To this the plaintiff answered that it was, and that he supposed the ship had been prevented by adverse winds from joining convoy at Falmouth. It was generally known at Lloyd's that a ship of the same name as the plaintiff's was at sea without a convoy; but the broker did not communicate the plaintiff's answer to the underwriters. Held, that this concealment vacated the policy (s).

7. An insurance broker acting on instructions received previously from Sunderland, effected a policy at Lloyd's. At the time a letter lay on his table at the Coal Exchange unopened, announcing the loss of the ship. Held, that the jury were justified in finding that this was not such a want of diligence as to avoid the policy (t).

8. The defendants effected with an underwriter a series of open policies for certain specified sums to cover shipments to be declared and valued as interest might appear. The policies were effected on different dates, and were to succeed each other in the order of date. The values of the shipments were declared at considerably under their real value, so that when the later policies were effected, the earlier policies were in fact more exhausted than they would appear to be from the declarations. The defendants fraudulently and systematically undervalued the shipments. Further, they concealed the fact from the underwriter. Held, that the concealment was of a material fact, and entitled the underwriter to have the later policies cancelled (u).

(-) Bates v. Hewitt, L. R., 2 Q. B. 595.

(s) Sautell v. Loudon, 5 Taunt. 358.

(1) Wake v. Atty, 4 Taunt. 493.

(u) Riraz v. Gerussi, 6 Q. B. D. 222; 50 L.J., Q. B. 176; 44 L. T. 79 (C. A.).

CHAPTER IX.

ILLEGALITY.

$ 172.

Insurance on illegal voyages.

In insurance on an illegal voyage, as, for example, on a voyage made for purposes of smuggling, will be null and void. If only part of the voyage be illegal, the insurance will still be void; for an infirmity in any part of the voyage or policy will invalidate the whole, so that the insured will not be able to recover in respect of any part of it (a). Of course if the voyage be not one and entire, but there be several distinct and separate voyages, the illegality of one of them will be no defence to an action on a policy relating to another or others of them (1).

Where illegal goods are insured in the same policy as legal goods, the policy will be void. Again, where goods to be thereafter specified are insured in one policy, and where in the specification subsequently made some goods are included, the exportation of which is prohibited under pain of forfeiture, the policy will be vitiated in toto (c). But an insurance on licensed goods brought from an enemy's country will not be invalidated merely because some unlicensed goods were on board the vessel that brought them (?).

If a vessel be insured by a voyage policy “at and from,” some specified port, any illegality existing in the risk while

(a) Parkin v. Dick, 11 East, 502;
Bird v. l'igou, 2 Selw. N. P. 932.
(6) Bird v. Appleton, 8 T. R. 562;
"Cases

(1) at end of this g.

(c) Parkin v. Dick, 11 East, 502.

(il) Picschell v. Allnutt, 4 Taunt. 792.

Bee

the vessel is at the port will avoid the insurance on the entire voyage, even though there is no illegality at the time when the vessel sails (c).

The following are illegal voyages :-
(1) All voyages made for the purpose of smuggling Illegal

goods into the United Kingdom (f).-A policy Voyages.
will not be vitiated because the voyage was pro-
hibited by the revenue laws of a foreign state, if
the underwriter were informed of the precise
character of the risk; for the English courts pay
no regard to the revenue laws of foreign

countries.
(2) All voyages, prohibited by the various Merchant

Shipping Acts (9), Passenger Acts (1), or the
Customs Laws Consolidation Act of 1876 (39 & 40

Vict. c. 36).
(3) All voyages made in contravention of a commercial

treaty, concluded between Great Britain and a

foreign state. (4) All voyages prosecuted in contravention of an em

bargo (i). It follows, therefore, that where the voyage would contravene, if completed, some Act of Parliament, or some commercial treaty entered into with a foreign state, the voyage cannot be validly insured (k). Further, an insurance effected on a vessel, whether British or foreign, in contravention of an embargo, will be null and void (1).

(e) 1 Marshall, Ins. 51.–100; Bird v. Appleton, 8 T. R. 562; see Cases” (1) at end of this $.

(f) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36 (Customs Laws Consolidation Act, 1876), ss. 39-41.

(9) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 5; 1b. c. 104; 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91 ; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 63; 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124 ; 34 & 35 Vict. c. 110; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 19; Ib. c. 73; 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85; 39

& 40 Vict. c. 80.

() 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119; 26 & 27 Vict. c. 51; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 95.

(i) Delmada v. Motteux, 1 Park, Ins. 357; see

" Cases

(2) at end of this g.

(k) Marryat v. Wilson, 1 B. & P. 430 (S.C.); and per Lord Stowell, The Eenrom, 2 Rob. 1.

(1) Delmada v. Molteux, supra.

ܕ

Cases. 1. A ship was insured “at and from Canton to Hamburg or Copenhagen.” The ship sailed from Canton but was captured during her voyage in consequence of some illegality in her traffic while at Canton. Held, that the assured was not entitled to recover from the underwriters in respect of his loss (m).

2. A policy was effected on a Venetian ship “at and from London to Grenada, with liberty to touch at Cork and Madeira to load.” In October, 1782, the ship sailed on her voyage from London to Cork and there loaded provisions, belonging to certain French subjects. England and France were then at war. In December, 1782, the ship sailed from Cork to Madeira, and on her voyage from Madeira to Grenada was captured by an English man-of-war. An embargo had been placed in August, 1780, on all vessels which should be loaded in Ireland with any kind of provisions. Held, that the underwriters were not liable on the policy (n).

Insurances on hostile ships or goods.

$ 173. Insurances effected on a vessel or goods belonging to an enemy are illegal and of no effect (0). This rule will apply equally to the case of insurances made before the commencement of hostilities and to those made afterwards (p).

Insurances on an adventure carried on jointly by a British subject and an enemy are also illegal and void ; unless the British subject be domiciled in a neutral state, or unless the adventure be conducted under the king's licence (9)

An insurance by a foreigner against British capture or embargo will be illegal ; unless the capture be accidental and made through mistake (»).

Insurance against British capture.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« ПретходнаНастави »