Heyman and Others v Parish
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 1809 |
| Date | 31 May 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1111
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Cory v Burr, 1881, 8 Q. B. D. 313; P Samuel & Co. v Dumas, [1924] A. C. 431.
Wednesday, May 31, 1809. heyman and others v. parish. (SernMe^ that if a declaration of a policy of insurance lay the loss by the perils of the aeaa, the plaintiff may recover upon proof that the ship was wrecked, although this may have been occasioned by the barratry of the master or mariners.) * Vide Johnson v. Hudson, 11 last, 180 ; Gremaire v. Le Clerc Bois Valon, ante, 143. 1112 VON -TCTNGELN V. DUBOIS 2 CAMP. I6fl. [Referred to, Cory v ^n-, 1881, 8 Q. B. B. 313 ; P Samuel & Co. v Dumas, [1924] A. C. 431.] This was an action on a policy of insurance on the ship " Canopus," at and from Plymouth to- Gottenburgh. The declaration stated, that by the perils and dangers of the seas, and by the force and violence of the winds and waves, the ship struck upon rocks, and was thereby bulged, broken, and filled with water, wrecked, cast away, ioundered, sunk, and wholly Lost to the persons interested therein. The plaintiff's witnesses swore, that while the ship was [150] working out of Plymouth harbour, with a pilot on board, she missed stays ; and that, notwithstanding everything was done to save her, which the pilot directed, she went ashore among the rocks, and was lost The defense was^ that the loss had been occasioned by the misconduct of the captain. In support of tlis case, the pilot swore, that the captain sailed in a foul wind, contrary to his directions, having before refused to sail when the wind was fair ; that in several other respects he disobeyed the witness's instructions, though informed of the consequences and, finally, that the ship having been stopped when going on shar by getting out an anchor, the captain cut the cable, and allowed her to drift on the rocks. Lord Elfemborough said, if the witness was believed, this was a clear case of barratry. Park, for the defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...126, Smith v. Scott. So it seems a vessel wrecked by the barratry of the master may be stated to have been lost by the perils of the seas. 2 Camp. 149, Heyman v. Parish, per Lord Ellenborough C.J. And where, after shipwreck, the residue of the goods were got on shore, and there stolen, it w......
-
Samuel (P.) & Company Ltd v Dumas
...case it was of course the scuttling, and that is not a "peril of the sea." 46 A dictum of Lord Ellenborough in ( Hayman v. Parish 1809, 2 Campbell 146) was also cited. That dictum was a criticism of a ruling of Mr. Justice Buller on the question whether, if a Plaintiff declared for a loss b......
-
Graham Joint Stock Shipping Company Ltd v Merchants' Marine Insurance Company Ltd
...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......
-
Cory v Burr
...C. B. Rep. N. S. 259; Vallejo v. Wheeler, 1 Camp. 143; Roscow v, Corson, 8 Taunt. 684; Havelock v. Hancill, 3T. R. 277; Heyman v. Parish, 2 Camp. 149; Arcangelo v. Thompson, 2 Camp.620; Hahn v. Corbett, 2 Bing. 205 : Livie v. Janon, 12 East. 648; and the following American authorities : Wat......