Hubbard v Jackson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1811 |
| Date | 25 November 1811 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 293
Common Pleas Division
the hands of the person who employed him, that person shall not pay for the goods." 13 Yes. 316, Ex parte &ker. Lord Erskine, Chancellor, went largely into the case of Steers and Lashley, 6 T. R. 61, and all the other oases adjudged in the King's Bench ; but in that case, the case Ex parte Mather was not cited. And he observes, that Steers v. Lashley was decided by Lord Kenyon C. J. in the absence of Grose and Lawrence, Justices. Pell referred to the case of Ribbans v. Crickett, 1 Bus. 264, 168] MANSFIELD C. J. on this day delivered the opinion of the Court. Upon the discussion of this rule, a great many cases were cited, and not all recoileileable to each other ; but considering this case, upon the inference to be drawn from all the cases, it is impossible that this action can be supported. In Petrie v. Hannay, the Plaintiff succeeded upon the ground of an express order to the man to pay the money, that is, the desire of the testator; and he could not have resisted it. In Faikney v. Reynons, there was an order to pay the money, though it was on an illegal contract; and the reasoning of Buller and Grose Justices, in favour of the Plaintiff, in Petrie v. Hannay, would have applied for the Defendant in this case. Here is no order from the Defendant to the Plaintiff to pay the bets that he lost ; and though, from the nature of the transaction, it is natural that the Plaintiff should pay for the Defendant any money he lost, yet that arises out of the nature of the transaction itself, which is an illegal transaction, in which the Plaintiff is the principal actor ; it is impossible, therefore, to say that the Plaintiff can recover this money, which he has paid i pursuance of this illegal transaction. Therefore the Ri must be made absolute. [169] HUBBARD v. JACKSON. Nov. 25, 1811. A policy was effected at four guineas per cent. on hemp marked R and valued, with certain returns of premium upon arrival at certain ports, and warranted to sail before the 20th of August, which was a summer risk and premium. By a memorandum indorsed, the underwriter, for four guineas additional and the return of 5s. less for arrival, absolved the assured from the warranty of sailing before 20th August, so making it a winter risk, and withdrew the mark of the hemp. Held that these were not such alterations of the subjectanatter insured, and of the terms of the policy, but that they might be made by stat. 35 G. 5, c. 63, a. 13, without my new stamp. The Plaintiff, in the first part of his first count, proceeded in declaring in the usual form upon a policy of insurance, effected by himself on the 5th day of June 1807, at and from St. Petersburgh to Chatham, Woolwich, London, Portsmouth, or Plymouth, all, or either, and including risk in craft, upon goods, in the good ship or vessel called "Ship or Ships," warranted to sail on or before the 20th of August 1807, old style, beginning the adventure from the loading thereof on board at St. Petersburgh, valued at 10,0001. on hemp, marked R, valued at 451, per ton, at a premium of four guineas per cent. to return 45s. per cent, if the ships should sail with convoy from the Sound, on such part as should be discharged in the river ; 40s. per cent, on such part as might be discharged at Portsmouth, and 35s, per cent. upon such part as might be discharged at Plymouth, and arrive ; and after averring the payment of 20 guineas premium, mutual promises, and the Defendant's subscription to the policy for 5001., the Plaintiff alleged that after the making of the policy, the Plaintiff was desirous to withdraw the mark of the hemp, as specified in the policy, and the warranty of sailin before or at the time in the policy mentioned, whereof the Defendant had notice, an thereupon, afterwards, on the 6th of October, in the same year, by a memorandum indorsed on the policy, and subscribed by the Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...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. 107, Ridndale v. Sheddm. 5 Taunt. 359, Sawtell v. London. 1 Marsh, 99, S. C. 1......
-
Everth v Blackburne
...or means of such alteration. For the decisions under this section, see Kensitigton v I ugh* and Another, 8 Bast, 273, Hubbard v Jackson, 4 Taunt 169; Rid&dale v. Sheddon, 4 Camp. 107, from which it appears that an extension of the time of sailing preceding the risk does not render a new sta......
-
Brine v Featherstone
...Insurance Company, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 454 574 being stamped. The me able as between the part Rule absolute (a). BRINE r. FEATHERSTONE 4 TAUNT. 169. 'rig of the act is, that it shall not without a stamp be avail-so as enable them to enforce the agreement. [869] BRINE V. FEATHERSTONE. May 25......
-
Ridsdale and Others v Shedden
...city with a considerable number of merchantmen to a place called the Pillars, 14 or 15 leagues below, but (a) Vide Hubbard v. Jackson, 4 Taunt. 169. 36 BID SDALE V. NEWNHAM 4 CAMP. 109. still [109] within the limits of the port of Quebec. There she lay to for vessels that had net been able ......