De Costa v Scandret
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1723 |
| Date | 01 January 1723 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 24 E.R. 686
LORD MACCLESFIELD.
Case 42.-de costa versus. scandret. [1723.] Lord Macdesfield. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 636, pi. 2, A merchant having a doubtful account of his ship, insures his ship without acquainting the insurers what danger the ship was in; this held to be a fraudulent insurance ; and the Court relieved against the policy. One having a doubtful account of his ship that was at sea, vie. that a ship described like his. was taken, insured her, without giving any information to the insurers of what he had heard, either as to the hazard, or circumstances which might induce him to believe that his ship was in great danger, if not actually lost. i The insurers bring a bill for an injunction, and to be relieved against the insurance as fraudulent. Lord Chancellor. The insured has not dealt fairly with the insurers in this case ; he ought to have disclosed to them what intelligence he had of the ship's being in danger, and which might induce him, at least, to fear that it was lost, though he had no certain account of it; for if this had been discovered, it is impossible to think, that the insurers would have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Insurance Company of the West Indies v Michael Campbell
...on the ground of the fraud of the assured’. The cases cited in support are Whittingham v Thornburgh (1690) 2 Vern. 206; 23 ER 734 and De Costa v Scandret (1723) 2 P.Wms. 170; 24 ER 686. The former involved a life insurance policy and the latter was a case involving marine insurance. The l......
-
Strive Shipping Corpn v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd
...of non-disclosure by the assured, he should for one reason or another be disentitled to enforce the contract of insurance. Thus, in De Costa v. Scandret (1723) 2 P Wm 169 Lord Macclesfield LC in the Court of Chancery ordered that the policy be delivered up and the premium be repaid. In Seam......
-
Hastings and Others v Wilson and Others
...at all, or at a higher premium , therefore, he thought that the concealment of this intelligence was a fraud. Dacosta v. Scandrett, 2 P. Wms. 170. So, in Seaman v. Fonereau, 2 Str 1183. Two days before the subscription of the policy, the plaintiff's agent received a letter to this effect. "......
-
Gray v Mathias
...at law. The same point, that there is a concurrent jurisdiction, was decided in Minshaw v. Jordan, at the Rolls, De Costa v. Scandret (2 P. Wms. 170), Sowerby v. Warder (cited 2 Anst. 456, 7), Bawden v. Shadwell (Amb. 269), and Newman v. Franco (2 Anst. 519), as to money won at play. Brodie......