Graham Joint Stock Shipping Company Ltd v Merchants' Marine Insurance Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 December 1922 |
| Date | 15 December 1922 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Bankes and Scrutton, L.JJ. and Eve, J.
Graham Joint Stock Shipping Company Limited v. Merchants' Marine Insurance Company Limited
Boston Fruit Company v. British and Foreign Marine Insurance CompanyDID=ASPM 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 37, 206 94 L. T. Rep. 806 (1906) A. C. 336
Small and others v. United Kingdom Mutual Insurance CompanyDID=ASPMELR 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 255 76 L. T. Rep. 326 (1897) 2 Q. B. 42, 42 per Mathew, J. at p. 256 (Asp.)
Samuel and Co. Limited v. DumasUNK 154 L. T. Jour. 467
Yangtsze Insurance Association Limited v. LukmanjeeDID=ASPM 14 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 296 118 L. T. Rep. 736 (1918) A. C. 585
Insurance (Marine) — Scuttling of ship — Policy taken out by owner of ship
76 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. APP.] GRAHAM JOINT STOCK SHIPPING CO. V. MERCHANTS' MARINE INSURANCE CO. [APP. Nov. 23, 24, 27, and Dec. 15, 1922. (Before BANKES and SCRUTTON, L..JJ. and EVE, J.) GRAHAM JOINT STOCK SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED V. MERCHANTS' MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (a). APPEAL FROM THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION. Insurance (Marine) - Scuttling of ship - Policy taken out by owner of ship - Money lent on agreement for mortgage - Claim by lenders against underwriters. The plaintiffs advanced a sum of money to a ship-owner on the security of a first mortgage on the whole of the ship. A policy was then taken out by certain brokers in their own names and (or) as agents upon the hull and machinery of the ship against, inter alia, perils of the seas and barratry of master and mariners. While the policy was still in force the vessel was scuttled by the master and crew with the connivance of the shipowner. In an action brought on the policy against the underwriters by the plaintiffs as mortgagees, Greer, J. held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover to the extent of their mortgage, since they were parties concerned whom the mortgage was intended to benefit. Held, reversing Greer, .J., that there being no evidence in support of the plaintiffs'' case that (a) Reported by EnwtiiD J. M. CHAPLIN, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. 77 APP.] GRAHAM JOINT STOCK SHIPPING CO. V. MERCHANTS' MARINE INSURANCE CO. [APP. they were parties to the contract of insurance, they had failed to make a foundation for their claim and could not recover on the policy. APPEAL from a decision of Greer, J. In 1919 ??Elie Angelis, a Greek shipowner, contracted with a firm of shipbuilders in Sunder-land that they should build for him a steamer, the Ioanna, for 330,000l. Angelis then arranged with the plaintiffs, who were a firm carrying on business in Glasgow, that in consideration of a mortgage of the steamer to be granted to them when she was completed, they would provide moneys payable from time to time to the shipbuilders as construction proceeded. The plaintiffs provided the necessary funds and the steamer was completed in May 1920. On the 28th July 1920 an agreement for a mortgage, embodying the terms previously agreed, was executed giving the plaintiffs a mortgage on the steamer for 145,000l. By a policy of marine insurance, dated the 15th June 1920, the defendants had insured the steamer for twelve months from the 29th May 1920 in the sum of 15,000l., against, inter alia, perils of the sea, and the vessel proceeded on a voyage to the United States. On the 31st Jan. 1921 she left an American port with a cargo of coal for the Mediterranean. She called at Gibraltar for orders and was there directed to discharge at Naples. While steaming eastward along the ??anish coast she was sunk owing, it was ??ged, to her having come in contact with a mine on the 19th Feb. 1921. Greer, J. held that she was sunk with the connivance and by the orders of the owner. In an action brought on the policy by the plaintiff's against the marine risk underwriters, he held that the plaintiffs had an insurablc interest, as they were parties whom it might concern and whom it was intended to benefit when the policy was taken out, and further, that the claim of the innocent mortgagees was not barred by the fraud of the owner. The plaintiffs were therefore entitled to succeed against the marine risk underwriters. The marine risk underwriters appealed. R. A. Wright, K.C. and ??Cluughton Scott for the appellants. Jowitt, K.C. and J. Dickinson for the respondents. The following authorities were referred to: Heyman v. Parish, 2 Camp. 149 ; Hobbs v. Hannam, 3 Camp. 93 ; Magnus v. Buttemer, 11 C. B. 876 ; Soares v. Thornton, 7 Taunt. 627 ; Nutt v. Bourdicu, 1 T. R. 323; Blyth v. Shepherd, 9 M. & W. 763 ; Thompson v. Hopper, 0 12. & B. 172 ; Board of Management of Trim Joint District School v. Kelly, 111 L. T. Hep. 305 ;(1914) A. C. 667 ; Reid v. British and Irish Steam Packet Company Limited, 125 L. T. Rep. 67 ; (1921) 2 K. B. 319; Mountain v. Whittle, 15 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 255; 125 L. T. Hep. 193; (1921) 1 A. C. 615; Sassoon and Co. v. Western Assurance Company, 12 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 206; 106 L. T. Rep. 929 ; (1912) A. C. 561; Leyland Shipping Company Limited v. Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Limited, ''?? Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 258; 118 L. T. Rep. 120; (1918) A. C. 350; Hamilton v. Pandorf, 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 212; 57 L. T. Rep. 726 ; 12 App. Cas. 518 ; Dudgeon v. Pembroke, 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 393; 36 L. T. Rep. 382; 2 App. Cas. 284; Trinder Anderson and Co. v. Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company, 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 373 ; 78 L. T. Rep. 485; (1898) 2 Q. B. 114; Small and others v. United Kingdom Marine Mutual Insurance Association, 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 255, 293 ; 76 L. T. Rep. 326, 828; (1897) 2 Q. B. 42, 311; Lawen v. Swasso, Postlethwaite's Diet. Art. Assur. 147 ; Wilson and Co. v. Owners of the cargo of the Xantho, 6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas.8, 207: 57 L. T. Rep. 701 ; 12 App. Cas. 503; Boston Fruit Company v. British and Foreign Marine Insurance Company, 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 37, 206; 94 L. T. Rep. 806 ; (1906) A. C. 336; Bunyon on Fire Insurance, 6th edit., p. 376 ; Nichols and Co. v. Scottish Union and Na-tional Insurance Company, 2 Times L. Rep. 190; Macgillivray on Insurance Law, P. 713. Cur. adv. vult. BANKES, L.J.-By a policy of marine insurance, dated the 15th June 1920, the appellants insured the steamer Ioanna for twelve months from 29th May 1920 in the sum of 15,000/. against, inter alia, perils of the sea. The Ioanna was totally lost, on the 19th Feb. 1921. The present action was brought by the respondents claiming to be fully interested in the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial