Grant v Paxton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1809 |
| Date | 09 February 1809 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 914
Common Pleas Division
914 GRANT V. PAXTON I TAUNT. 463. which the old rule was relaxed, and perhaps that case went too far, but in the present instance the witness was within the reach of process. The Court mentioned the case of Crosby v, Percy, ante, 364, and held, that if the circumstance of a witness being abroad dispenses with the necessity of producing him, there was not pretence for the present motion. Unquestionably the Plaintiff's attorney thought the attesting witness out of the reach of process, and as to all persons in England, he was in Spain. When the previous inquiries were made, the elder brother did not know to the contrary, and the father did not at the time of the trial know that his son had not actually sailed again. Rule refused. [483] GRANT V. PAXTON. Feb. 9, 1809. policy upon a homeward voyage from India, upon goods at and from a foreign port of loading, until the ship's arrival in London, beginning the adventure upon the said goods from the loading thereof at the foreign port of loading, and so should continue upon the goods, until the same should be discharged ; was held to attach only on the particular cargo taken in at the first port of loading.Though the insurance was, to all or any ports and places whatsoever beyond the Cape of Good Hope, in port, and at sea, in all places, at all times, and in all services, with liberty to proceed to, touch and stay at any ports or places whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever.But upon an insurance on an India voyage out and home, the policy being equally extensive as that above stated, and containing the additional words, and forwards and backwards at sea, until the ship's arrival at her last station of discharge, though it purported literally to be on the said goods, the Court held it mnst by necessary implication apply to all goods put on board in the course of the voyageForwards and backwards means from port to port in the course of the voyage, not from Europe to Asia and from Asia to Europe.Upon an insurance on an East India voyage, the underwriters are hound to know the course of the East India Company's charter-parties and trade, and that the ship's destination is liable to be changed after the policy is effected.And if the company permit the voyage of a chartered ship to be altered, though it is at the request and partly for the benefit of the assured, the altered voyage continues protected by the policy. This action was brought upon a policy effected upon goods by the "Brunswick," as interest might appear; to pay average upon each species of goods, at and from China to all or any ports or places whatsoever and wheresoever in the East Indies, Persia, or elsewhere beyond the Cape of Good Hope, in port, and at sea, in all places, at all times, and in all services, until the ship's safe arrival at London ; with liberty to seek for, join, and exchange convoys ; beginning the adventure upon the said goods and merchandizes from the loading thereof on board the said ship at China, including the risk in craft from the shore to the ship, and to continue until the said ship, with all her ordnance, &c. and goods and merchandizes whatsoever, should be arrived at London, including the risk in craft from the ship to the shore, and upon the goods and merchandizes, until the same should be discharged, and safely landed ; and it was stipulated that; it should be (464) lawful for the said ship, &c. in that voyage to proceed and sail to, and touch, and stay at any ports or places whatsoever, for any purpose whatsoever, without being deemed a deviation. The declaration averred that a large quantity of goods was loaded on board at China, to be carried on the voyage insured ; that the ship sailed, and proceeded in the course of the said voyage to Bombay, and that while she was there, the said goods were unloaded and taken out of the ship, and in lieu thereof other goods, while the ship remained at Bombay in the course of the said voyage, were put on board her, to be carried on the further prosecution of the said voyage ; that she afterwards sailed from Bombay in the further prosecution of the said voyage, and was captured with the said last mentioned goods on board. This cause was tried before Mansfield C. J. and a special jury, at Guildhall, at the Sittings after Trinity term 1807. The facts proved were, that the "Brunswick," of which the Plaintiff was part owner, had, in October 1803, been chartered in the usual terms of the East India Company charter-parties, for a voyage to China and back, and on any other service whatsoever, as the said Company, or any of their governors, presidents* or agents, authorized thereto by the Court of Directors for the time being, or any committee of the Company, should require or direct : that the ship sailed from China, with a cargo of tea, some part of which belonged to the Plaintiff, as his private adventure, arid was the subject of this insurance. That she soon afterwards sprung a leak, which rendered it necessary for her to go into Bombay, where she delivered the undamaged part of the company's goods to be carried to England on board of the "Worcester " and "Skelton Castle," two ships which were then lying there : and the Plaintiff, by permission of the company, forwarded:his private adventure towards England by the " Bridgewater," and insured it for that voyage by a fresh policy, the underwriters upon which after-[465]-wards paid him for a total loss sustained by the capture of that ship in the course of her homeward passage. When the "Brunswick " was repaired, the governor in council at Bombay, upon the application of the Plaintiff, permitted her to return to the port of Canton in China for the purpose of receiving another cargo of tea on account of the company, stipulating that the company should not be charged with any expence on account of demurrage, deviation or detention, or other costs and charges whatever by reason of the " Brunswick" proceeding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...See also 1 Camp. 503, Vallance, v. Dewar. Ibid. 505 n. Ougier v. Jenyns. Ibid. 508 n. Kingston v. Knibbs. 3 Camp. 200, Moxon v. Atkins. 1 Taunt. 463, Grant v. Paxton. Selwyn, N. P. 963. [See also Peake, 43, Chaurand v. Angerstein. But the usage must be general, in order to bind the insurer ......
-
Hunter and Others against Leathley
...terms, that "the adventure on the goods should commence from the loading thereof On board the said ship," and then Grant v. Paxton (1 Taunt. 463), Spitta v. Woodman (2 Taunt. 416), Constable v. Noble (2 Taunt. 403), and Mellish v. Allnutt (2 M. & S. 106), are direct authorities for the defe......