Hill against Patten
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 May 1807 |
| Date | 02 May 1807 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 386
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Noble v. Ward, 1867, L. R. 2 Ex. 138.
hill against patten. Saturday, May 2d, 1807. A policy effected on "ship and out-fit," on a voyage upon the Southern Whale Fishery out and home, cannot be altered by consent, after the ship sails, and the risk attaches, to an insurance on " ship arid goods," without a new stamp; out-fit the subject matter of insurance being essentially different in such a voyage from goods; and therefore not within the exception of the stat. 35 Geo. 3, c. 63, s. 13, which enables alterations to be made in the terms or conditions of a policy, without having a new stamp, so that the thing insured remains the property of the same persons, &c. It seems however that shifting or successive cargoes on board the same ship in the course of the same adventure, (as in the African and other trades,) out and home, may be covered by an insurance on goods. [Referred to, Noble v. Ward, 1867, L. E. 2 Ex. 438.] This was an action upon a policy of insurance on ship and out-fit, in a voyage upon the Southern Whale Fishery out and home, which was effected in September 1804 : and on the 13th of March 1805, long after the sailing of the ship on the voyage insured, but before any advice received of her, in consequence of some misunderstanding between the broker and his principal as to the broker's instructions at the time of effecting the policy, an application was made to the underwriters, who agreed to alter it (a)1, which was done by a memorandum indorsed on the policy in these words ; " It is hereby agreed that the [374] interest on this policy shall be on ship and goods instead of ship and out-fit as originally declared." The ship was afterwards lost in the course of the voyage. It was objected at the trial before Lord Ellenborough at Guildhall, that however the policy might have been effected in the original terms of it, through a misunderstanding between the principal and his agent, yet the contract was equally binding between the contracting parties at the time; and as the risk had once attached, it was not competent to the parties to make the alteration, though by consent, without a new stamp; goods being a distinct subject matter of insurance from out-fit in such a voyage; and therefore not within the exception of the stat. 35 Geo. 3, c. 63, s. 13, which enables the parties to make any alteration in the terms or conditions of a policy, so that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...decisions on this section of the statute, as to what alterations are within the saving of the Act, so as not to require a fresh stamp, see 8 East, 373, Hill v. Patten. Ibid. 273, Kensington v. Inglis (in error). 4 Taunt. 169, Hubbard v. Jackson. 1 M. & S. 217, Robinson v. Touray. 4 Camp. 10......
-
R v Judge of City of London Court
...jurisdiction is conferred : Brown v. Stapylton, 4 Biag. 119; 5 L. J, 121, C. P.; and the judgment of Best, C. J.; Hill v. Patten, 8 East. 373, per Lord Ellenborongh, C.J.; 1 Park on Insurance 7th ed., p. 26 (citing Ross v. Thwaites); Cohen v. The South-Eastern Railway Company (in the Court ......
-
Roddick v Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Company
...206 Forbes v. AspinallENR 13 East, 323 The GlenlivetDID=ASPMELR 68 L. T. Rep. 860 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 395 (1893) P. 164 Hill v. PattenENR 8 East, 373 Insurance Time policy Hull and machinery of a steamship 24 MARITIME LAW CASES. PRIV. Co.] RODDICK v. INDEMNITY MUTUAL MARINE INSURANCE COMPA......
-
The London and Bridhton Railway Company v G. F. Fairclough
...an authority under seal, to insert the name of any person who might become the purchaser, would have been sufficient. Tamen quaere. (d) 8 East, 373. Hill, the plaintiff, having become bankrupt, an action was brought by his assignees, in which second action the policy was declared upon in it......