Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Motteux v.


But a

" At and from,” &c. the voyage proposed. 2. Voyage,

The voyage must be commenced within a reasonable

time, for if the ship be laid by for a considerable season 2 Atkins, 359, with the knowledge of the owner, the insurer will be Chitty v. Sel discharged. wyn.

“ At and from Bengal to England” means the first

arrival at Bengal, and the first arrival is always implied i Atkins, 548,

in such cases. “At and from Jamaica to London :" the London Assur- vessel which was warranted to sail after January 12,

moved from one part to another in Jamaica before that 2 launton, 301,

day and was lost; the Court held, that under the word Cruickshank v. at the ship was protected in such a course. Janson.

policy" at and from Lyme to London” will not shelter Id. 403, Con

a cargo at Bridport, although that place is within the stable v. Noble. port of Lyme. Voyage nuust If the voyage be prohibited by the law of England noi be illegal. the policy is void. And if there be an infirmity in any in Park, p. 353- part of the integral voyage, the assured cannot recover B, Lord Ken- upon a policy on any part of it, although the insurance


be effected on the homeward course, which, taken Rep. 46. by itself, would be legal. Still, if the voyages be disId. 562, Bird v. Appleton; tinct, although there be an illicit traffic during the outId. 569, by Lawrence, J.

ward, a policy would be good on the homeward, for the 4 Tauptun, 856, illegality must exist during the course of the voyage Sewell v. Royal

South Sea licences are now abolished, by 55 Geo. 3, ch. 57, & 141, and it will therefore be unnecessary

to do more than refer to the books on insurance upon Marshall,p.175. the subject.

The King's licence, given by virtue of his royal prerogative, is granted for the preservation of trade, and it enables his own subjects, or those of foreign states, such as he may please to endow with the authority, to prosecute adventures which otherwise would be out of


8 Term

Exchange As." insured.

surance. Licences.

Park, p. 357,

the law's protection, and on which no insurances could in such case be made. This instrument is construed liberally (m), at least at the present day, the object

i Bingham,473, being to facilitate the commerce of the country, and Lemcke v. therefore, a misdescription of the person's name will not Vaughan. invalidate the licence (n). Nor will it be void, although

16 East, the party interested be a foreigner residing here under Peise ». Newn. an alien licence, and the adventure be carried on by his ham. agents, the instrument being granted to “ F and Co.

12 East, 223, * and others.” And it is no matter that the agent be not Rawlinson v. himself interested in the goods. But something must be Jansen; see

3 Taurt. 546, shown to connect the party using the licence with the Fayle v. Bour

dillon. lawful possession of it, as, that one party is agent for

12 East, 311, another, and it is certainly not enough to show that the Barlow v. Molnlicence was intended to legalize a particular adventure tosh; 16 East;

v. . without establishing a title to it.

5 Taunton, 720, Robinson v.


(m) An agent, obtaining a licence, did not represent to the Privy Council that his application was on behalf of a hostile trader; the policy was not vitiated by this concealment. 5 Taunton, 674, Flindt v. Scott: the authority of Mennet v. Bonham, 15 East, 477, is shaken by this case.

It is no objection to the policy, that the loss has been occasioned by an act of the alien's own government.

Same case as above ; and see 5 Taunton, 711, Anthony v. Muline ; Id. 716, Schnakoneg v. Andrews.

(n) Lord Ellenborough held the contrary, it being the policy at that time to construe licences strictly. 14 East, 484, Klingender v. Bond; and see the judgment of Lord Gifford in Lemcke v. Vaughan, 1 Bingham, 481. And if a ship violate the convoy act by sailing with a larger complement of guns and men than the licence authorizes, but without the know. ledge of the assured, such licence will not be repudiated, nor the policy made void on that ground. i Campbell, 530, Edwards v. Footner.


If there be a condition annexed, that must be fulfilled to enable the party to avail bimself of the grant, as

where a bond for the exportation of goods was re1 East, 475, Vandyck v.

quired, such security not being given, the exportation Wniunore. became illegal. So where there was a licence for the

exportation of gunpowder, but on condition that the 4 Barnewall & Abersoll, 184, merchant exporter should give a certain security; the Camelo v. Brit. party asking for the licence gave the security and the

policy was vacated, for he was not the merchant 12 East, 302, n. Gordon v. exporter. And a colourable performance of the conVaughan.

dition will not be sufficient, for that will be held a 8 East, 273, Kensitigron v. fraud upon the licence. This document being duly Inglis. obtained, may operate to protect an insurance upon an

enemy's ship; and upon his goods, so as to enable 3 Taunton, 554, him to enforce his contract in this country; and, of Morgan v. Oswald ;

course, if a place be occupied by a military force at war 4 Taunton, 4, Feise v. Bel;

with Great Britain, and His Majesty permit traffic to 3 Naule & Sel- be carried on between the inhabitants of that place and man o. Whit.

England, a policy effected by them will protect goods I Mavle & Sele shipped here on their account. wyn, 567. Hagedon v. Reid ; 5 Maule & Selwyn, 25, Rucker v. Ansley.

i Maule & Selwyn, 450, Hagedon v. Bell; see also 2 Maule & Selwyn, 100, Hagedorn v. Bazett; 1 Maule & Selwyn, 217, Robinson v. Touray ; 4 Tüunton, 792 Pieschell v. Allnut. 4 Tannton, 233,

And a merchant, who had two neutral partners, trading De Tastet v.

under a licence granted to the broker of the firm, was Taylor; and see 13. Fast, 332, permitted to sue the underwriters on his policy, although Usparicha o. Noble.

the neutrals became enemies before the bringing of the

the action. 4 Taunton, 178,

However, the licence must not be strained beyond its Wainhouse v. Cowie ; 2 Mar. specific object; and thus, where a ship was allowed to shall, 252, Dar. by v. Newton;

convoy to a certain port, here was no licence 15 East, 517, that she should run the residue of the voyage without Ingl.am v. Ago either licence or convoy. So, if there be an alteration 1 Barnewall & of the voyage not consistent with the terms of the Alderson, 142, licence, it will be unprofitable. But if the ship be deTanno.

go without

wyn, 337, Hulle


ver ;



tained through some unavoidable accident, the licence 15 East, 52, shall not be exhausted so as to prevent the legality of Schroder v;

Vaux ; 5 Tauno the adventure, although the actual time may have ex- ton, 329, Everth pired; it is upon the principle of inevitable necessity. Camp. 83, GroBut, to prove that the master of the vessel has used due ning v.Crockett. diligence some testimony must be brought forward, and Taunton, 478, the particular excuse relied upon by the person desirous Walker; Id. of recovering on the policy must be shown. As where 483, Leevin v. a ship's cargo, being unladen in the course of the voyage, 4 Taunton, 717, was destroyed by fire, and another cargo substituted, Siffkin v. Glothe old licence was held to protect it, though the parties & Selwyn, 39, had actually obtained unnecessarily a new one, and the Siffken v. Allobjection made at the trial against their recovering was, that the clearance of the substituted cargo had not been indorsed on the new licence, and which could not be, as it was not with the ship.

The difference between a licence for exportation and one for importation may be referred to the same princi. 6 Taunton, 390, ple, since in the one case there is time to apply, in gene- Williams v.

Marshall; same ral, for a new licence, in the latter, it is not so. And it

case again tried, seems, that an accident will not alter the case if a new 7 Taunton, 468; licence can be procured in due time, nor is clearing at 2 Marshall, 92 ; the Custom House in London an exportation, it appear. Tulloch . Boyd; ing that ships are not considered as having exported till 7 Taunton, 472 after passing Gravesend. The exportation, however, same case. of the excess is alone illegal, so that where more gun- 6 Taunton, 498, powder was put into the ship than the licence war- Keirv.Andrade; ranted, the insurances, it was held, might be supported 2 Marshall, 196; to the extent of the legalized quantity. If there be no hi East, 503,

Parkin v. Dick, licence the policy is avoided in toto.

We have seen that these licences may not be assigned and a licence to the plaintiff, who had a general bill of lading signed to him, while particular bills where executed in favour of other persons, was held not to protect the consignment; but if the plain

same case,

saine casc,

2 Taunton, 248, tiff had shown a special property in the goods, it would Feise v. Waters. have been otherwise. To enumerate all the cases upon

licences would be a long, and probably an unprofitable task, because these instruments are construed in general according to their own respective terms, and as they vary with the changes of the times. Without such licence, however, the insurance of an enemy's property

is decidedly illegal; and notwithstanding the various opi6 Term Rep. 23, Brandon v.

nions entertained upon the expediency of the decisions, Nesbitt; Id. 35, the Court of King's Bench have twice held that docBristow v. Towers. trine after considerable argument.

And it does not alter the case that the ship insured belonged to persons

in friendship with Great Britain at the time of the 3 Bosanquet & Puller,191, Fur: policy, if hostilities have broken out afterwards, and tado v. Rodgers. the vessel be made a prize to British capture. For, as 4 East, 417, in Lord Ellenborough said, a proviso to this effect shall in Brandon v. Cur- all cases be considered as engrafted : “ Provided that ling, which is to

" this insurance shall not extend to cover any Id. 407, Gam

pening during the existence of hostilities between the

respective countries of the assured and assurer." 4 East, 396,

A policy on a foreign ship expressly excepting British Kellner v. Le Mesorier; see captures is illegal, but there is perhaps a difference where Park, p. 375 ;

it is made to cover a British risk. But Lord Ellen7 Fast, 451; 3 Bosanquet & borough has holden, that a neutral, resident at an Puller, 302; 6 Espinasse,

enemy's port, may have an insurance effected upon his 184. Visger v. goods, for possibly he might have been entrapped or Prescott; Park,

confined. And, the adventure not being of a hostile Campb. 75, description, a neutral ship may carry the property of an Bromley v.

enemy from its own country to that of the enemy, and 9 East, 283, such property may thus become the subject of insurance Barker, 1. upon this subject of trading with an enemy Marshall, p. 39-42. 2 Campb. 163, A licence to an alien to import does not authorize

him to remain here, or sue on the policy.

loss hap

the same effect.

ba r'. Le Mesurier.

p. 130.



Blakes. See

Boulton v. Dobree.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »