Fitzherbert against Mather
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1785 |
| Date | 01 January 1785 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 944
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
Recognised, Proudfoot v. Montefiore, 1867, L. R. 2 Q. B. 519. Observed upon, Stribley v. Imperial Marine Insurance Company, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 511; Blackburn v. Vigors, 1887, 12 App. Cas. 531.
fitzherbert against mather. 1785. Any person acting by the orders of the insured, and who is any wise instrumental in procuring the insurance, is bound to disclose all he knows to the underwriter, before the policy is effected : and where any misrepresentation arises from his fraud or negligence, the policy is void. Where one of two innocent persons must suffer by the fraud or negligence of a third, whichever of the two gave him credit ought to bear the loss. [14 East, 494.] [Eecognised, Proudfoot v. Montefiwe, 1867, L. E. 2 Q. B. 519. Observed upon, Stribley v. Imperial Marine Insurance Company, 1876, 1 Q. B. D. 511; Blackburn v. Figoi-s, 1887, 12 App. Cas. 531.] This was an action on a policy of insurance for 1101. underwritten by the defendant (a)1 Vide Barnes, 438, 441, 4to edition. (J)1 Vide Cro. Eliz. 779. (c) 2 Lev. 205. 1 Freem. 415. (a)2 Vide Barnes, 4to edition, 173, 3 Wils. 23, & 2 Str. 891, cont. (i)2 Vide 2 Stra. 834, Goodtitle against Walton. (a)8 Vid. Taylor v. Cole, post, 3 vol. 292. (6)3 1 Salk. 221. 2 Wils. 313. 3 Wils. 20. Yelv. 96, 7. Cro. Jac. 147. Bull. N. P. 81. 1 T. K. 13 FITZHERBERT V. MATHER 945 on the 21st of September 1782, at six guineas per cent, on a cargo of oats on board the ship "Joseph," lost or not lost, at and from Hartland to Portsmouth, beginning the adventure from the loading thereof on board the said ship at Hartland. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and paid the premium into Court. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff at the sittings at Guildhall, before Buller, J. after last Trinity term, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case: "That on the 27th of July 1782, William Bundock, of Pool, agent for the plaintiff, contracted with Richard Thomas of Hartland, a corn-factor, for the purchase of 500 quarters of oats, to be consigned to William Fuller, at Portsmouth, on the plaintiff's account, and directed Thomas to send him (Bundock) a bill of loading and invoice, and also a like bill of loading [13] and invoice to the plaintiff at Cuthbert Fisher's, Esq; London. That, in pursuance thereof, Thomas shipped the oats on board the ship insured, which sailed from Hartland on the 16th of September 1782 ; and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deutsche Ruckversicherung Aktiengesellschaft v Walbrook Insurance Company Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
... ... Fitzherbert v MatherENR (1785) 1 TR 12 ; 99 ER 944 ... Grosvenor and West-end ... 5(2) ... 3. The test to be applied where an injunction was sought against a beneficiary was no different from the test applicable when an injunction was applied for against ... the argument that the rule in Hampshire Land should give way to the rule in Fitzherbert v Mather ... Where, however, the materiality of the fraud is said to be no more than moral hazard I find it an ... ...
-
PCW Syndicates v PCW Reinsurers
...Land Holdings plcUNK [1994] BCC 143; [1994] 2 All ER 685. Espin v PembertonENR (1859) 3 De G & J 547; 44 ER 1380. Fitzherbert v MatherENR (1785) 1 TR 12; 99 ER 944. Group Josi Re v Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd & Ors [1995] CLC 1,532. Hampshire Land Co, ReELR [1896] 2 Ch 743. Kwei Tek Chao & Or......
- Maye v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd