Bell v Humphries and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1819 |
| Date | 01 January 1819 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 668
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[345] bell v. humphries and others. (A managing owner and part-owner of a ship cannot bind another part-owner by effecting an insurance on the ship without his authority ) This was an action of assunipsit brought by the plaintiff, an insurance broker, to recover for insurances alleged to have been effected by the plaintiff, upon the ship " Betsy," upon the retainer of the defendants The principal question was, as to the liability of Poole, one of the defendants It appeared that Humphries and Roberts were general merchants, and that they had directed the insurances in question to be effected by the plaintiff, on the ship 3 STAfcE. 34*. GREEN V. DEAKIN 669 " Betsy," and freight. They were managing owners of the ship, and part-owners, and the defendant Foole, and two other defendants, who had suffered judgment by default, were also part-owners No direct evidence was given to shew that Poole had authorised the effecting of the policies, but evidence was given to shew that Poole had in a letter stated that Bell, the plaintiff, was broker for the ship, and that he had, in fact, acted as broker for three years; and it was contended, that since Poole had had the benefit of the insurance as part-owner, he was jointly liable for the expence ; but- Lord Ellenborough was of opinion, that Poole, although a part-owner, was not table in respect of the insurances effected by the managing owners, [346] without proof of an express authority given...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsay v Gibbs
...a part owner of a ship cannot, without authority, insure the ship and charge the expenses against the other partners ; Sett v. Humphries (2 Stark, 345); French v. Backhmtse (5 Burr. 2727); Abbott on Shipping (page 73); d, fortiori, an owner cannot charge insurance of the ship against us who......