Hobbs v Hannam
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 November 1811 |
| Date | 05 November 1811 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1317
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
considered, Small v. United Kingdom Marine Mutual Insurance Association, [1897] 2 Q. B. 42; P. Samuel & Co v Dumas. [1923] 1 K B. 592.
Tuesday, Nov. 5, 1811. hobbs v. hannah (Where it is stipulated by a charter-party that, iti case the shi[i is lost during the voyage,, the charterer shall pay the owner a sum of money which is estimated as the value of the ship, the owner has still an inaurable interest in the ship during the voyage. If a chartered ship be lost by means of the captain engaging in an illegal trade in obedience to the orders of the charterer, this is not a loss by barratry, for which the owner of the ship can recover against the underwriters. Sembte, that after a ship has sailed on a voyage to a place within the limits of the South Sea Company f a retrospective licence, granted by the company, is insufficient to legalize the voyage.) [Considered, Small v. United Kingdom Marine Mutual Insurance Association, [1897] 2 Q. B. 42; P. Samuel & Go v Dumas. [1923] 1KB. 592.] This was an action on a policy of insurance on the ship " Jane," valued at 3600 " at and from Rio Janeiro to any port or place in the river Plate, and from thence to her port of discharge in Great Britain or Ireland." The ship was the property of the plaintiff ; and was chartered by him to one Woodman, who covenanted by the charter-party that, in case the ship was lost, he should pay the plaintiff 3600. Woodman addressed the ship to one Kendal, at Rio Janeko, whose orders he desired the captain implicitly to obey When the ship readied Rio Janeiro, she was ordered by Kendall's partner to proceed to Buenos Ayres. where Ken-[94]-dal himself then was. Upon her arrival at the latter pfece, Kendal sent smuggled goods on board, for which she was seized and condemned by the Spanish government. Garrowv for the defendant, first objected that the plaintiff had not an msurable interest in the ship, as he had a right to recover the 3600 from Woodman, the charterer. Itord Bltenborough held, that he was not bound to trust exclusively to the credit of the charterer ; but might likewise protect himself by a policy of insurance. Garrow then contended, that this was a loss which had arisen directly from the act of the assmred; and for which the underwriters, therefore, could not be liable. Marryat, contra, insisted that this was a loss by barratry The charter-party gave no leave to go to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham Joint Stock Shipping Company Ltd v Merchants' Marine Insurance Company Ltd
...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. Shepherd, 9 M. & W. 763 ; Thomps......
-
Small v United Kingdom Marine Mutual Insurance Association
...J., in Commercial Court Small and others v. United Kingdom Mutual Insurance Company Jones v. NicholsonENR 10 Ex. 28 Hobbs v. HannamENR 3 Camp. 93 Irving v. RichardsonENR 2 B. & Ad. 193 Insurance — Ship — Master part owner 255 MARITIME LAW CASES Q.B. DIV.] SMALL AND OTHERS v. UNITED KINGDOM ......
-
Moorsom v Page
...was, whether freight could be claimed for the outside skins, in which the packages of skins were inclosed. The out- * Vide Hobbs v Hannam, 3 Campb. 93 ; Toulmmv Anderson, Taunt 227; Hodgson \. Fullarton, 4 Taunt. 787. 4 GAMP. 10?. KIDSDALE V. SHEDDEN 35 side ones are of an inferior quality,......
-
Small v United Kingdom Marine Mutual Insurance Association
...he claims through the mortgagor, and that which is a defence against the mortgagor is a defence against his mortgagee: Hobbs v. Hannam, 3 Camp. 93. If the mortgagee can claim at all under this policy, he claims in effect as the assignee of Wilkes, the mortgagor, and stands in the same posit......