Miller v Warre
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 February 1824 |
| Date | 26 February 1824 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 1177
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Feb. 26th, 1824. miller v. wakee. (A ship going from Loudou to Grenada, and back, having been 48 hours in a port in Grenada, has concluded her outward voyage. If she goes afterwards to other parts in the same island, to deliver outward cargo, and receive contracts for homeward freight, and so is lost, this is a loss on her homeward voyage. A ship owner who has entered into contracts for freight has an insurable interest in the freight, though the contracts are not in writing. If a bill of exceptions is tendered to a judge, the facts still go to the jury, but a demurrer to evidence stops the case.) Assumpsit, on a policy of insurance on the ship " Aurora " and her freight, at and from Grenada to London, with leave to call at all, or any of the West India islands. The loss was by penis of the seas. The ship had sailed on her outward voyage, with stores for different estates in that island, but the defendant had not insured her on that voyage. On the 16th of January, 1823, the ship arrived, after her outward voyage, at Grand Mai Bay, in the island of Grenada, and there delivered part of her outward cargo, and remained 48 hours ; she then proceeded to different [238] bays in that island, and delivered other parts of her outward cargo. At each of these bays, the captain entered into verbal contracts with the agents of different estates, for them to ship sugars on board the " Aurora," on her voyage home ; and the quantity each agreed to ship he entered in a book. The ship then proceeded to Grenville Bay, to deliver the residue of her outward cargo, and on entering that bay was totally lost. None of the homeward cargo had been taken on board. For the plaintiff, it was contended, that the outward voyage was terminated by her staying 48 hours in Grand Mai Bay ; and that, as soon as she left Graud Mai Bay, the homeward voyage commenced, and the homeward policy of the ship attached ; and as to the freight, as contracts were made for the sending of the sugars, the plaintiff had an insurable interest in such freight, and could recover for it on this policy, though none of the sugars had been actually put on board. Foi the defendant, it was urged, that if the outward voyage had ended at Grand Mai Bay, the ship's going to the different ports to deliver outward cargo, was no prosecution of the homeward voyage, and was, therefore, a deviation. And as to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...v. Thompson. 14 East, 522, Robertson v. Hamilton. 4 B. & A, 582, Manfield v. Madtland. [2 Bing. 185, Palmer v. Pratt. 9 Moo. 358, S. C. 1 C. & P. 237, Miller v. Wane. 2 Bing. N. C. 761, Sparkes v. Marshall. 3 Scott, 172, S. C. 17 Ves. 258, Exparte Houghton. 6 Bing. N. C. 358, De Faux v. Ste......
-
Warre against Miller
...Citation: 107 E.R. 1160 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Warre against Miller S. C. 7 D. & R. 1; 4 L. J./ K. B. O. S. 8; and at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 237. [538] waree against miller (in error). 1825. Assumpsit on a policy of insurance on freight of a ship at and from Grenada to London. It wa......