Haywood and Another against Rodgers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1804 |
| Date | 13 February 1804 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 957
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Harrower v. Hutchinson, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B. 594; Asfar v. Blundell [1895], 2 Q. B. 202; [1896]. 1 Q. B. 123.
haywood and another against rodgers. Monday, Feb. 13th, 1804. As an assured impliedly warrants the ship insured to be sea-worthy, whatever forms an ingredient in seaworthiness is not necessary to be disclosed by the assured to the underwriter, in the first instance, unless information upon the subject be particularly called for; and then the assured must disclose truly what he knows _ in the respect required. Therefore where the assured of a ship had received a letter from his captain informing him that he had been obliged to have a survey on the ship at Trinidad, on account of her bad character; but the survey which accompanied the letter gave the ship a good character: Held that the non-disclosure of such letter and survey to the underwriters did not vacate the policy ; though it appeared in evidence that such circumstance, if known, would have enhanced the premium of insurance. [Referred to, Narrower v. Hutchinson, 1870, L. R. 5 Q. B.594; Asfar v. Blundell [1895], 2 Q. B. 202;'[1896], 1 Q. B. 123.] This was an action on a policy of assurance, dated 20th of April 1802, upon the ship "Eliza," lost or not lost, at and from Trinidad to London, with liberty to call [591] at all or any of the Leeward or Windward Islands; wherein the plaintiffs declared upon a loss by perils of the sea, and upon the common money counts. The defendant pleaded the general issue as to all but the premium declared for in the count for money had and received, as to which he pleaded a tender; on which issues were taken. At the trial before Chambre J., at the last Lancaster Assizes, the principal question which arose, was upon the materiality of a certain letter and document, which was received by the assured prior to the insurance being effected, and which was not communicated to the underwriters. The letter was dated on the 29th of January 1802, in which the captain informed his owners of his "safe arrival at Trinidad, after a pleasant voyage of six weeks from Liverpool; that he had got his. ship very clean, and the carpenter had got her all caulked ; that she was in very good order; but that he had had a survey on her on account of her bad character; that he had two letters from Martinique, but no encouragement for freight, as he understood Martinique was full of shipping; but that he had advertised for London, and expected to sail in March." This letter was accompanied by the document in question, the survey taken at Trinidad, which was perfectly satisfactory ; the surveyors (a) 4 Term Rep. 695. (&) Vid. Stables v. Ashley and Others, 1 Bos. & Pull. 49, S. P. in C. B. 958 HAYWOOD V. RODGERS . 4 EAST, 592. all agreeing that the s"hip was sufficient to, take in her cargo, and proceed to any port in Great Britain with safety. In addition to this, the captain and ship's carpenter proved that the ship sailed from Liverpool on the 6th of November 1801, and arrived at Trinidad on the 18th of December following in as good condition as when she sailed, having met with no accident on the voyage; that she had Manchester goods on board, which arrived in very good order. That on his arrival the captain applied to a Mr. Mitchell for freight, which he declined, because the captain of an [592] African vessel, which had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...mistake or negligence of the assured, or his agent. 1 Black. Rep. 593, Carter v. Boehm. 1 Bos. & Pull. N. R. 14, Willes v. Gimer. But see 4 East, 590, Haywood v. Rodgers. And 7 East, 457, Freeland v. Glover. 1 Bos. & Pull. N. R. 151, Littledale v. I ixon.(c) Indeed the concealment of materi......
-
Asfar & Company v Blundell
...to have been disclosed by the underwriters: The Bedouin, 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 391 ; 69 L. T. Rep. 782; (1894) P. 1; Haywood v. Rodgers, 4 East, 590; Tate v. Hyslop, 53 L. T. Rep. 581; 5 Asp. MM. Law Cas. 487 ; 15 Q. B. Div. 368 ; Mercantile Steamship Company v. Tyser, 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 6......
-
‘Gunford’ Ship Company, Ltd, v Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Company, Ltd
...of the suspension, although he, no doubt, could easily have obtained the 1 Bates v. HewittELR, L. R., 2 Q. B. 595; Haywood v. RogersENR, 4 East. 590; Baker & Adams v. Scottish Sea Insurance Co.UNK, 18 D. 691; Arnould, 8th ed., 618, 2 Pickup v. Thames and Mersey Marine Insurance Co., Limited......
-
Alexander v Campbell
...356; Kisch v. The Central Railway Company of Venezuela (Uinited) 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 801; 34 L. J., N. S., 545, Oh.; Haywood v. Rodgers, 4 East, 590, 597; Carter v. Boehm, 3 Burr, 1905: Barter v. Fletcher, 1 Douglas, 306; The evidence as to whether the matter not communicated were material ......