from the Thames or Mersey to a p o r t“l ^ t h e r e coast of Spain; and as rn this caae^there was not a mere intention to e v i ’cern0d, had ship, so far as the goods we which sailed on a different voyage, and one 1 the the assured had no rig h t to “ deolaw them, t policy and deviation clause
the assured had no rig ht to recov e Sedqwick (Ct. of App.) Simon Israel and Co. v. » age 245 and others ...
2. A t ta c h e of
— Breakdown of machinery insurance Ship a rriv e d — By a policy 0 30OOL,” the
“ upon freight ^ loss
oc-underwriters were to be h ^ ry until casioned by breaking down ° Uydames, final sailing of vessel the to any lost or not lost, at and from Tiiver Plate ports or places in any wd®* in , _ _ . . . and thence to the Uni e< ° Then fob This part of the P°Jlcy th t the assurance lowed a clause to the effect . . . a g00ds or should commence upon the fr g gafd goods merchandise from the loading ° W ith the on board the ship at Monte 1 Yideo ” this exception of the words Mon form of clause was in print, being P^5 d t insurance policy generally - e d by the < le fe iid a n t^ ^ company. A fter discharging Kiver at Monte Video, the ship P - ^ ^ t but her Plate to obtain a cargo of f r der uoh refrigerating machinery brok^ow n u n d ^ ^ circumstances that she was u adventnre, so frozen meat on board, so tha „ ed bad to far as the carriage of meat 7 as,“ " w h i c h she be abandoned. By the contract under wn ^ was to have taken a cargo entitled the shipowners, the assured, , ^ the
to freight on all C both
ae-date of the policy i t was , ,, 0 were no sured and underwriters th for loading proper appliances at; M °“ ^ ^ uld not possibly frozen moat, so that the ship port. In take any frozen meat on boari a |j . Held an action by the assured upon ^ dants were (reversing W ills, J .), that t ,. so much liable because in construing P , ag deflned of the printed clause in the < oc f rom the the commencement of the ns wag jn the loading of the goods at Mon ^ pe rejected, circumstances insensible a,nd s . y i de0 and and tha t the lis k attached a ^ e cargo, did not depend upon the ' hL Company v- (Ct. of App.) Hydames 8teamsm' e Com-The Indemnity M utual Marine I n ...470,553 panV ..." " " 1 _Hire ceasing 3- Chartered fre ig h t—Charter-pan pet^ is insured d u rin g breakdow n o f n iach ine J p 0ss fry a g a in s t— B rea kdow n causedarter-party entered
p e rils—Concealment. A c french company
into between the plaintiffs an clause to the for hire of their vessel contai 0j time by effect tha t “ in the event 0 machinery,
• . . breakdown of eng1 ,, e 8teamer is . . . and the progress o^twenty-four run- thereby delayed for more cease u n til such ning hours, payment of tor gtate to resume time as she is again in an e initialled by her voyage.” An insurance , ’ the plaintiffs the defendant, was taken , A ed and (or) as fo r three months, “ freight board, • •. ' i f chartered, on board or n0 , „ and a policy one-third diminishing each m ’ gj j p contained exeouted in accordance " i t the seas,” &c-the usual clause as to per ,, yessel was In the course of her voyage
Slaved for twenty-eight days, owing to the breaking of her thrust-shaft. The plaintiffs brought an action on the policy for_ the loss of b re, and Barnes, X , found as a fact that the breakage was due to a peril of the sea Held (affirming the decision of Barnes, J,, and affirm- S t t e decision in The ^ (68 L. T Bep N. 8.
«24 • 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 337 , (1893) 1 r . 109)’ that the clause in the charter-party was put into operation through the immediate action of the perils insured against, and that therefore the defendant was liable. Also that, although the defendant was not informed when he initialled the slip that he was insuring freight under a charter containing the twenty-four hours clause, there was no concealment of a material fact, as a r?“ charter almost invariably contains the twenty-four hours clause, and this fact, together w ith the words on the slip, ‘ And (or) as i f char
tered, on board or not on board, . . .
one-■“ , t J T n , u - » » ... « . 391 1 Chartered freight— Charter-party—H ire ceasing 4 f L repairs—Perils insured against— Fire
LosTby perils.—By a charter-party entered into u tween the plaintiffs and certain charterers for thehire of the plaintiff's vessel at so much per
“ tv. l t was provided that, in the event of loss T tim e from want of repairs, &c preventing the f „ nf the vessel for more than twenty-four hours the payment of the hire should working the’ bour when detention began u n til
°uaSefssel was again efficient. The plaintiffs the I d the chartered freight by a policy effected
“ I h thehdefendants which contained the usual 7 c specifying perils of the seas, fire, &c The clause sp J gd by fire, and there was loss of vessel wa B oJause in the charter-party, j “ 6-’ The time she was being repaired. Held, t h S ^ b f clause was put into operation through that -ns of the perils insured against, thei? w r t e r e f o r e the plaintiffs were entitled to
“ ¡^ iS S T w iw . - 33V
C la im fo y . London.— Where a British Su“ d e r X r t e r outward bound in ballast to ship “ nde“ , d for the homeward voyage put America t to repair damage caused by m‘ ° „ “ ther and incurred expenses for such heavy , were not incurred to avert a loss re p a irs w h ic h t ^ gMp an d {re ig h t) and the of the jo in t 1 underwriters to recover an shipowners sued the ^ ^ polioy on char.
alleged ^ h providing that general tered homewa „ _er foreign statement if average was pay^derw riters were hcld not liable required, t an alleged general average for a oo.ctnbuitmi1 ata\ ement prepared in loss shown by alleged provisions of the
London question not being
American law’ , jaJld the shipowners being a general aver = > and freight, and as there alone mteres foreign adjustment, the was no necessity ^ W » J > no lia b ility
£0l X e 9undTrIriters. (Adm.) The Brigetta 403 up . j freiqht— Stranding—Refusal to load 6. Chartered fre 9 of insurance upon
-C a n c e m io rn ^ ^ pr0Ti ded that ‘‘ no freight »»der a ^ cancelling 0f any charter claim aI^sm^ f e under a time charter, should u0r for iose M o b ile proceeding to
the
port of b® I®1 Ih e ' vessel stranded, and was so damaged l0ai m+be vovage contemplated by the charter- partytecame impossible. The charterers did notSUBJECTS OF CASES.
load under the charter-party. The charter did not contain a “ cancellation” clause, and the parties did not agree to rescind the contract.
Held (reversing the decision of theQueen’s Bench Division), tha t the charter had not been “ can
celled ” w ith in the meaning of the policy, and th a t the insurers were liable. (Ct. of App.) Jamieson v. Newcastle Steamship Freight In su r
ance Association... page 562, 593 7. Collision clause— Proviso as to expenses of raising
wreck—L ia b ility fo r such expenses.—A t the time of a collision in foreign waters, between the ships N. and P., the plaintiffs, the owners of the N., were insured in the defendant company by a policy of insurance which contained a collision clause, to which the following proviso was attached : “ Provided always, tha t this clause shall in no case extend to any sum which the assured may become liable to pay, or shall pay fo r removal of obstructions under statutory powers, for in ju ry to harbours, wharves, piers, stages, and sim ilar structures, consequent on such collision, or in respect of the cargo or engage
ments of the insured vessel, or for loss of life or personal injury.” In consequence of the collision the P. sank, and was ultim ately re
moved by the local authorities acting under statutory powers. The expenses of such removal were directed to be paid by the P. to the local authority, and were so paid. In cross-actions for damages in respect of the said collision both ships admitted lia b ility , and, on the damages being referred to the registrar and merchants for assessment, the registrar, by agreement and oonsent of the parties, allowed as part of the claim on behalf of the owners of the P. the sum so paid by the owners of the P. whereby the owners of the N. became liable to pay as part of the damages, to the owners of the P., a moiety of such sum. In an action by the owners of the N., against the underwriters of the N., to recover moneys alleged to be due under the said policy, in respect of the removal of the P . : Held (re
versing Barnes, J.), tha t the assured could not recover, as the underwriters were exempted from lia b ility by the terms of the proviso to the collision clause. (Ct. of App.) The North B rita in ... 413 8. Collision clause— Tug towing the ship insured—
Collision between tug and th ird ship— L ia b ility .
—Where a ship was insured under a policy which contained the clause “ if the ship hereby insured shall come into collision with any other ship or vessel, and the insured shall, in consequence, become liable to pay, and shall pay to the persons interested in such other ship or vessel any sum or sums of money,” the underwriters would pay the assured a proportion of the sum so paid, and a tug whilst towing such ship collided w ith another ship whose owners recovered damages from both tug and tow i t was held tha t the collision between the tug and the damaged vessel was a collision w ith the tow w ithin the meaning of the policy, and that the underwriters were liable. (H. of L.) McCowan v. Baine and others ; The Niobe ... 89 9. Collision w ith sunken wreck— Wreck—Sunken
cargo.— W h e re a stea m ship ra n ag ro u n d and re sted on an o ld sunken w re c k , and the n moved fo r w a rd on to ir o n ore, w h ic h h a d some years before fo rm e d p a rt o f a cargo o f a n o th e r vessel, an d sustained damage b y th e c o n ta c t w ith th e w re c k and ore, th e u n d e rw rite rs w ere he ld lia b le fo r such damage u n d e r a p o lic y co v e rin g “ loss o r damage th r o u g h c o llis io n w ith a n y sunken w re c k .” (A d m .) The Hfunroe ... 407
10. Fire—“ Burnt ” — W arranty free from average unless, ¡¡c.—A ship is not “ burnt ” within the meaning of the memorandum in a Lloyd’s policy of insurance, “ warranted free from average under 3 per cent., unless the ship be stranded, sunk, or burnt,” unless the in ju ry by fire is of so substantial a character that the ship can be said to be “ burnt ” in the popular sense of the term.
(Ct. of App.) The Gleniivet... page 395 11. General average as per foreign statement— Sue
and labour clause—Statement drawn up abroad
— P articular average.—P laintiff, a shipowner, effected with the defendants two policies of insurance on a ship and freight containing the words, “ general average payable according to foreign statement,” and the usual sue and labour clause. A loss occurred owing to the vessel stranding through the negligence of the ma-ter, and a general average statement was drawn up (at Botterdam) in accordance with Dutch practice. Various charges which were incurred in getting the ship and cargo off were appor
tioned as general average, which, if the average statement had been made in England, might have been treated as particular average on ship and freight, or as charges under the sue and labour clause. The shipowner was unable to obtain contribution to general average from the cargo owners, because by Dutch law when a loss occurs through the negligence of the master, contribution to general average losses cannot be recovered from the cargo owners by the ship
owner, even though (as in this case) the bills of lading contain the exception of “ strandings, . . . even when occasioned by negligence, de
fault, or error in judgment by the pilot, master, or other servants of the shipowner.” The ship
owner then brought this action on the polioies on ship and freight to recover as particular average on ship and freight, or as charges under the sue and labour clause, what they were pre
cluded by Dutch law from recovering as general average. Held, that the plain tiff having agreed to be bound by a foreign average statement, could not now go behind the statement drawn up at Botterdam, and could not reoover as par
ticu la r average charges which had been treated as general average in the foreign statement, and tha t the foreign statement governed as between the assured and the underwriters. (Ct. of App.) The M ary Thomas ... 495 12. Loss by perils insured against—Proximate cause
— Tug—Damage by collision w ith any object—
Consequential in ju ry .—A tug was insured against
“ the risk of collision and damage received in collision with any object.” The policy did not include the perils of the sea. The tug ran against a floating snag which did i t considerable injury, including damage to the engine-room machinery, and amongst other things broke the oover of the condenser, leaving an opening about twenty square inches in area. The tug com
menced leaking, and there being danger tha t the water would come into the ship through the ejection pipes and the hole in the condenser cover, the pipes were plugged from the outside.
W hile she was being towed to a place of repair, a plug came out and the water rushed into the engine-room through the ejection pipes and the hole in the condenser cover, and she began to fill rapidly. An attem pt to again plug the ejection pipes failed, and the vessel sank. Held, tha t the collision, and not the towing, was the proximate cause of the loss, and th a t the insurers were liable under the policy for a total loss. (Ct. of App.) Keischer v. Borwick ... 493
m a r i t i m e l a w c a s e s
.
X X VSUBJECTS OF CASES.
13. Payment — Brokers B ills fo r amount due -Direct lia b ility ,-P o lic ie s of p r a n c e upon tain of the plaintiffs’ ships were effected £ ith the defendants by a firm of insurance brokers o behalf of the plaintiffs. The plamtrffs eubse- quently authorised the brokers to settle them claim against the defendants under these ponies- and to receive payment in cash in a^cordanoe w ith the recognised custom. Instead ° f ° V brokers took a b ill of exchange at three months in payment of a general account including the pla in tiff’s. This b ill was Recounted andl was eventually paid by the defendants. action failed and did not pay the plaintiffs
to recover the money the uuderwri e not liable because the taking of t e brokers within the authority conferred uPon tb«
by the plaintiffs and was contrary to the recog^
nised business custom, and becanse nt to w hen discou nted d id n o t c o n s titu P J . . the plaintiffs. (Ct. of App.) Hme Brothers v^ ^ Steamship In su ra n ce S yndicate L im ite d ..-V 3 14. Re-insurance—Nonpayment by original
- . L ia b ility . - Where an insurance company, having re-insured a ship under a P° 1 7 ori<rinal to the same terms and conditions as
policy or policies and to pay aa, m ^ d but thereon,” became liable to pay the assure* W being in liquidation had not done so, Pay“ ®“ * the original insurers is not a condition precedent to payment by the re-insurers an M d y _ are liable under their policy. (L •
stone Marine Insurance Company, Re > P Western Marine Insurance Company ...
15. Separate packages—Average recoverable s rately or oh the whole— Damage to p _lainliff nation of the whole-Expenses.-Tho P1“ “ " “ shipped a number of cases of galvani
carriage from Bristol to Loud n, there to be transshipped by barges to another , nre(j f0r port to Australia. The goods wcr„eluding the the voyage from Bristol up> to • aj £ average wa9 transshipment, and by tne P° J , q. „ a.
agreed to be recoverable on each ¿ rm upon the rately or on the whole. In wcre wetted by insured voyage most of the ca , . ti{[ }iad them salt water, and in London the P g were un-a ll lun-anded un-and exun-amined. A ll found packed; and those in which tbe lr ° d exrorted, to be undamaged were repacked and e ^ while those in which the lron i„ ; ntiff was ea
se,d by auction. H eld th a t the p U m tiffv a title d to be reimbursed by the und for the loss upon the cases in which ^ r o n been damaged, and - as- ^ T ^ ’the examina- to the expenses incurred by no dama&e tion of those cases of iron lysaght v.
had in fact occurred. (Ct. o PP ... 552 Coleman and another ... „-u v u la r
StranAing— Free* £ » £ * “ f
average unless stranded » of insurance P articular average_ lo®£ A j by plaintiffs with on two parcels of rI®e ®ff dinarf memorandum defendants contained the t fro[n average by which rice is warrants t n(j eci ” &c., and unless general, or the ship “ Warranted a special memorandum as ° • the Bbip be free from particular averag carried in a stranded, &c. The rice, was ^ ^ French ship, and during J the rice was damaged in a storm an condemned and jettisoned, and some im t in for repairs, sold at a port where the V Tesgel gtranded W hile the cargo was onshore 0 was
for-damaged en route by perils of the sea. Plain
tiffs paid freight pro rata itineris, according to French law, on all the rice discharged from the French ship. The defendants paid their propor
tion of general average and forwarding charges, but resisted the plaintiffs’ claim fo r a particular average loss on the damaged rice, including the pro rata freight charged against it. Held, that, as the stranding occurred when the goods insured were not on board the vessel, the war
ranty against particular average remained good, and therefore the defendants were not liable.
(Adm. Div.) The Alsace and Lorraine ... page 362 17 Stranding—P articular average— Part cargo
shipped — Valued policy — Advance freight.—
Where in a policy of marine insurance the sub
ject matter was described as “ 26,910 bags of maize from A., 60651 at 1 per cent. ; 8299 bags of maize from B., 18751 at seven-eighths per cent,”
the goods being valued at “ 79401 (included 13611 8s. 6cZ. advance on freight),” and the policy covered a ll risk of craft and contained a warran
ty against particular average unless the ship or craft be stranded, the stranding of the ships while the 26,910 bags were on board and before the 8200 bags were on board was held not to let in a claim for particular average caused by sea perils after a ll the cargo was on board on the 8299 bags shipped at B, such bags not being at risk in the ship when the ship stranded; and such policy being treated as one policy upon valued goods, and not as a policy by which advanced freight was separately insured, i t was held that th e particular average loss on the 26,910 bags was to be calculated upon the fu ll amount of 79421 (Q. B. Div.) Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co., v. Pitts, Son, and King ... 102 18 Tug let on hire—Agreement to insure and in
dem nify—Extent of lia b ilit y — In an agreement by wh'ch t tug-owner agreed to le t his tug, i t was provided that the owner would fu lly insure and keep insured the tug against certain specified risks including risk of collision causing damage to the tug or other c ra ft; and, further, tha t if at any time "during the continuance of the agreement any of the risks covered should happen, the tug- owner would indemnify the hirer in respect of all such damage to the extent of all moneys received by him under the insurance. The owner effected
dem nify—Extent of lia b ilit y — In an agreement by wh'ch t tug-owner agreed to le t his tug, i t was provided that the owner would fu lly insure and keep insured the tug against certain specified risks including risk of collision causing damage to the tug or other c ra ft; and, further, tha t if at any time "during the continuance of the agreement any of the risks covered should happen, the tug- owner would indemnify the hirer in respect of all such damage to the extent of all moneys received by him under the insurance. The owner effected