Brough against Whitmore
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 February 1791 |
| Date | 11 February 1791 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 976
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Referred to, Rodocanachi v. Elliott, 1873-74, L. R. 8 C. P. 669; L. R. 9 C. P. 518; Roddick v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Company [1895], 1 Q. B. 842; [1895], 2 Q. B. 386.
brough against whitmore. Friday, Feb. llth, 1791. Provisions sent out in a ship for the use of the crew, are protected by a policy of assurance on the ship and furniture. [Referred to, Bodocanachi v. Elliott, 1873-74, L. E. 8 C. P. 669 ; L. R. 9 C. P. 518 ; Roddick v. Indemnity Muhial Marine Insurance Company [1895], 1 Q. B. 842 ; [1895], 2 Q. B. 386.] This was an action on a policy of insurance on an East India and China ship; and on the tackle, ordnance, ammunition, artillery, and furniture of the ship. At the trial before Lord Kenyon at the Guildhall sittings, it appeared that, while the ship was lying off Bank-Saul Island, in the river Canton, it became necessary to refit her; for which purpose the stores and provisions were taken out of her, and put into a warehouse, called a Bank-Saul: and that while they were in [207] the warehouse they were destroyed by an accidental fire. It was admitted that the policy covered all the articles but the provisions, which were merely for the use of the ship's crew : but if those provisions were not protected by the policy, then there was not an average loss of 31. per cent. It was considered in the same light as if the accident had happened on board the ship (a). For the defendant it was contended, that the provisions were not protected by the insurance : but one of the jury (b) said, that it had been determined in Lord Mansfield's time that they were included under the word " furniture," under which decision the merchants in the city had since acquiesced ; on which the plaintiffs obtained a verdict. Erskine, on a former day in this term, renewed his objection, and obtained a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted, on the authority of Robertson v. Ewer; ante, 1 vol. 127; and two Nisi Prius cases there mentioned. But the Court desired that some inquiry might be made respecting the case mentioned by one of the jurymen. Piggott and Marryat now shewed cause. They said that they had not found the case mentioned at the trial, but stated the result of their inquiries in the city to be, that the provisions, which were necessary for the use of the ship's crew, were always comprehended under the word "furniture;" and that underwriters had frequently paid the loss on such a policy as the present: but that provisions which were shipped for any other purpose than the ship's crew, were like any other kind of merchandize insured by a policy on the goods. The counsel then observed that this case was distinguishable from that of Robertson v. Ewer; for there the loss happened by the extraordinary consumption of the provisions by the negroes during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schiffshypothekenbank Zu Luebeck A.G. v Compton (Alexion Hope)
...should have incorporated their contract in a form which was described as long ago as 1791 by Buller J. as absurd and incoherent: Brough v. Whitmore (1791) 4 Term Rep. at 210. 3 The conditions of insurance which comprise the main terms of the contract are known as "Mortgagee's Interest Claus......