Hassell v The Merchant Traders, Ship Loan and Insurance Association
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 November 1849 |
| Date | 20 November 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 1322
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 19 L J Ex 183 Referred to, Lethbridge v Adams, 1872, L R 1329, 553
rj525] hassell v the merchant traders' ship loan and insurance ASSOCIATION Nov 20, 1849-A policy of insurance contained a proviso, by which it was agieed between the Company and the assiued, that the policy should in no case extend or be constiued to lender liable the lespective proprietors of the Company with respect to the same, beyond the amount of then respective individual shares , but that the capital stock and funds of the Company should alone be charged to answer all claims in respect of the policy The plaintiff having brought an action on the policy against the Company, and having obtained judgment therein-Held, that he was precluded by the proviso fiom issuing execution undei the 7 & 8 Viet c 110, s 68, against an individual share-holcler who had not signed the policy, although due diligence had been used to enforce the judgment against the Company [S C 19 L J Ex 183 Referred to, Lethbndge v Adams, 1872, L R 1329, 553] In this case a rule had been obtained, calling on Eail Talbot to shew cause why execution should not issue against Ins property 01 effects, puisuant to the 66th and 68th sections of the stat 7 & 8 Viet c 110 It appeared by the affidavits, that the action was brought upon two policies of insurance, the losses arising upon which had been settled and adjusted by the agents of the Company These policies were not signed by Lord Talbot The Company was completely registered under the 7 & 8 Viet c 110 The policies each contained the following proviso -"Provided always, and it is hereby expressly declared arid agreed between and by the aaid Company and the assured, that the said policy, and anything therein contained, shall in no ease extend, or be deemed or construed to extend, to charge or render liable the respective proprietors of the sard Company, or any of them, or any of their heirs, executors, or administrators, to any claim or demand whatsoever in respect of the said policy, or of the insurance thereby made, beyond the amount of then, his, or her respective individual shares or share in the capital stock of the said Company, but tljat the capital stock and funds of the said Company shall alone be chatgecl with and liable to answer all claims and demands by virtue of the said assurance, 01 incident...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzgerald v Rowan
...v. Ellison 6 B. M. 199. Reid v. Allan 19 L. J., N. S., Exch., 39. Hassell v. The Merchant Trader's Ship Loan and Insurance AssociationENR 4 Exch. 525. Pentland v. Gibson Al. & Nap. 310. Nickoll v. GlennieENR 1 M. & S. 589. Ex parte NorrishENR Jacob, 162. Steward v. GreavesENR 10 M. & W. 711......
-
Peddell v Gwyn
...7 & 8 Viet. c. 110, ss. 66, 68. That decision was recognised and adopted in this Court Hassell v. Thv Meichant Tnuleit,' Ship Association (4 Exch. 525) [Martin, B. In Hallett v. Dowdatt (18 Q B. 2), Cresswell, J., expressed an opinion that the clause in the deed of settlement, exempting eve......
-
Sunderland Marine Insurance Company v Kearney
...to indemnify out of the funds of the company. That case was acted upon in Hassell v. Merchant Traders' Ship Loan and Insurance Company (4 Exch. 525). Secondly, the action of debt does not lie, because the demand is not liquidated, and is also collateral. It is like that in Randall v. Rigby ......
-
Green v Minister of the Interior
...compulsion, and in support of that contention C referred to the following English decisions: Margareson and Saxton, (1835) 1 Y. and C., Ex. 525; Savoy Overseers v Art Union of London, 1896 A.C. 296; In re Wilkinson. Page v Public Trustee, 1926 Ch.D. 842; Gschwind v Huntingdon, (1918) 2 K.B.......