Andree and Others v Fletdher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 November 1787 |
| Date | 23 November 1787 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 87
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
andree and others against fletcher. Friday, Nov. 23d, 1787. Every re-assurance in this country either by British subjects or foreigners, whether on British or foreign ships, is void by 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, unless the assured be insolvent, become a bankrupt, or die. This was ati action on a policy of insurance, tried at the sittings after Trinity term 1787, at Guildhall, London, [162] before Grose, J. when the jury found a verdict (a)1 It is laid down in Zouch d. Abbot and Another v. Parsons, 3 Burr. 1806, that an infant may make a lease without reserving rent to try his title. (a)2 Dom. Proc. 26th May 1762. 5 Bro. Pad. Ca. 570. 88 ANDREE V. FLETCHER 2 T. R. 163. for the plaintiffs, damages 3151. subject to the opinion of the Court ou the following case: James Simaudy of Marseilles in France, on the 8th day of August 1780, subscribed a policy of assurance at Marseilles, on a ship called " La Vierge des Cannes arid Les Ames au Purgatoire," Cipriano Moresco, master, at and from Marseilles to Carthagena, for 7200 livres, or 3151. at a premium of 81. per cent. The defendant, on the 26th August 1780, subscribed the policy stated in the declaration, at a premium of 2 guineas per cent, for the said sum of 3151., being a re-assurance of the said J. Simandy's subscription to the first-mentioned policy. The ship, on her voyage from Marseilles to Alicant and Carthagena, was captured by an English privateer on the 14th of September, and carried into Mahon, and there condemned as prize ; and Simandy, on the 15th of February 1781, paid the sura subscribed by him at Marseilles to the assured. Simandy is living; and at the time of the subscribing of the policy stated in the declaration, he was solvent. The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover? Baldwin, for the plaintiffs, contended that the re-assurance effected under the circumstances of the present case was legal. Previous to the passing of the statute 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, there could not be any pretence to impeach the legality of such a contract. Nor is it affected by that statute; for that was passed in order to regulate insurances on ships belonging to the subjects of Great Britain. It appears not only by the title, but also by the preamble of that Act, that it was not meant to extend to foreign vessels. Ee-assurances are allowed in all the other commercial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aubert v Walsh
...to see whether a loss would happen or not, before he rescinded the contract, which was the reasou of the judgment. Andra v. Keleher, 2 T. R. 161, 3 T. R. 266, It was held that the premium paid for a re assurance could not, after the capture had happened, be recovered back. Vandyek v. Hewil,......