Berthon and Another v Loughman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 January 1817 |
| Date | 13 January 1817 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 639
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Campbell v. Rickards, 1833, 5 B. & Ald. 840.
Tuesday, Jan. 13, 1817. berthon and another v. loughman. (The opinion f one conversant in the business of insurance, as a matter of judgment, whether the communication of particular facts would have enhanced the premium is admissible evidence ; but he cannot be asked what he himself would have done in the particular case.) [Eeferred to, Campbell v. Rickards, 1833, 5 B. & Aid. 840.] This was an action on a policy of insurance, on two-thirds of the vessel " Madre de Dios," valued at 2000, and upon goods valued at 1500, from Pernambuco to St. Michael's. The vessel had sailed from St. Michael's on her outward voyage in May, 1811, and there was evidence to shew the probability that Vasconcellos, the owner, who resided at St. Michael's, knew that the ship had sailed from Pernambuco on her homeward voyage on the 3d of September, 1811. The loss took place [259} on the 15th of September. The letter containing the instructions to effect the insurance was dated December 12th, 1812, arrived in London on the 29th of January, and the insurance was elected on the 3d of March. 1 he defence was, that the ship at the time when the directions were given for the insurance, was to be considered as a missing ship, and that information material fot the guidance of the insurer had been withheld, the insurance having been effected as upon an ordinary risk The letter, upon the ground of which the insurance had been effected, having been put into the hands of a witness for the defendant, who was conversant with the subject of insurance, he was asked whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatch v Lewis
...premium, is admissible in evidence ; but he cannot be asked what his conduct would have been in the particular case ; Berthon v. Lougkman, 2 Stark 258-Holroyd Independently of any other objection, therefore, the question was inadmissible, nor could it have been put in any other way, as by a......
-
Samuel Anderson, in Error, v Anne Fitzgerald, Administratrix of Patrick Fitzgerald
...16 Law Jour. N. S. 273. Cohen v. HuskissonENR 14 M. & W. 95. Geach v. Ingall 17 Law Jour. N. S. 255, Ex. Berthon v. LoughmanENR 2 Star. 258. Pawson v. Watson Cowp. 786. Pawson v. BarnaveltENR 1 Doug. 13, n. Freeman v. BakerENR 5 B. & Ad. 797. Richardson v. BrownENR 1 Bing. 344. Flinn v. Hea......
-
Chapman and Another, Assignees of Richardson, a Bankrupt, v Walton
...The decision [65] in this case appears to be consistent with the principle laid down by Mr. Justice Holroyd in Berthon v. Loughman (2 Stark. N. P. 258), that a witness conversant in the subject of insurance might give his opinion, as a matter of judgment, whether particular facts, if disclo......