Montgomery and Company v Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1900 |
| Date | 19 November 1900 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Mathew, J.
Montgomery and Co. v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company Limited
Shepherd v. KottgenDID=ASPM 37 L. T. Rep. 618 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 544 2 C. P. Div. 578
The BrigellaDID=ASPMELR 69 L. T. Rep. 834 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 403 (1893) P. 189
Aitchsion v. LohreDID=ASPMELR 41 L. T. Rep. 323 4 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 168 4 App. Cas. 755
Oppenhein v. FryENR 8 L. T. Rep. 385 3 B. & S. 873
Potter v. Ocean Insurance Company 3 Sumner, 27
Greely v. Tremont Insurance Company 9 Cushing, 415
Marine insurance — General average — Assured owner of both ship and cargo
Shepherd v. Kottgen (37 L. T. Rep. 618; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 544 2 C. P. Div. 585) distinguished.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 141 Q.B. Div.] Montgomery & Co. v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Co. [Q.B. Div. Nov. 14 and 19,1900. (Before Mathew, J.) Montgomery and Co. v. Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company Limited, (a) Marine insurance - General average-Assured ownar of both ship and cargo-Insurance on cargo-Sacrifice of mast-Bight of assured to recover under policy-Liability of under, writers on cargo. The fact that the assured under a policy of marine insurance on cargo is owner of the ship as well as owner of the cargo does not prevent him from recovering under the policy from the underwriters on the cargo in respect of a general average loss, as a general average act does not depend on the consideration whether there can be any contribution or not as between the respective interests. The Brigella (69 L. T. Mep. 834; 7 Asp. Mar. Law Gas. 403; (1893) P. 189) not followed. A loss caused by the cutting away of the mast of a ship, which by the master's orders is cut away for the safety of the whole adventure, but which at the time it is cut away is not hopelessly lost and might be saved, is a general average sacrifice for which underwriters of a polic/y on cargo against perils of the seas are liable to the assured for general average contribution, and they are none the less liable because the assured are owners of both ship and cargo. Shepherd v. Kottgen (37 L. T. Rep. 618; 3 Asp. Mar. Law Cos, 544; 2 C. P. Div. 585) distinguished. Commercial cause tried before Mathew, J. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, the owners of the ship Airlie and her cargo, to recover from the defendants a general average loss under a policy of marine insurance on cargo effected by the defendants; alternatively, to recover the defendants' proportion of suing and labouring expenses to avert a total loss of the insured cargo. The policy was expressed to be on a cargo (in bags) of nitrate of soda in the ship Airlie at and from any ports or places on the West Coast of South America to any port of call and (or) discharge in the United Kingdom or on the continent of Europe (within certain limits) or in the United States. The insurance was against perils of the seas and other losses of the same character, and the policy contained the ordinary sue and labour I clause, and a provision that general average was payable as per foreign statement or York and Antwerp rules, if so made up. During the voyage the ship -countered very bad weather; the main mast, which was of iron and hollow, had settled down. The mast, however, was secured and remained firm in its position. At the ship continued to roll, the master, fearing that the mast would break, and so cause the loss of the vessel, order'ed it to be cut away, and it warn cut away and fell over the side. The plaintiffs were owners of both the ship Airlie and her cargo, and they now sought to recover, under their policy on the cargo, a general average loss incurred by the cutting away of the mast, as they contended that the cutting away of the mast was under the circumstances, a general average sacrifice, rendered necessary by the perils of the seas insured against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery and Company v Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company Ltd
...The Brigella (69 L. T. Rep. 834; 7 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 403; (1893) P. 189) disapproved. Decision of Mathew, J. (84 L. T. Rep. 57; 9 Asp Mar. Law Cas. 141; (1901) 1 K. B. 147) affirmed. MARITIME LAW CASES. 289 CT. OF APP.] MONTGOMERY & Co. v. INDEMNITY MUTUAL MARINE ASSURANCE Co. [CT. OF APP.......