Motteux and Others v the Governor and Company of London Assurance and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 December 1739 |
| Date | 06 December 1739 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 26 E.R. 343
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Haughton v. Empire Marine Insurance Company, 1866, L. R. 1 Ex. 210.
1 ATK. 545. MOTTEUX V. THE LONDON ASSURANCE 343 [545] Case 258.-motteux and Others v. the Governor and Company of london assurance and Others. December the Gth, 1739. [See Haughton v. Empire Marine Insurance Company, 1866, L. R. 1 Ex. 210.] 8. C. 4 Vin. 281, pi. 10 ; S. C. cited 1 Ves. 317. If a policy of insurance differs from the label, which is the memorandum or minutes of the agreement, it shall be made agreeable to the label. The ship Eyles, as appears by the bill, late in the East-India Company's service, was in 1732 at Bengal, at which time the owner employed Mr. James Halhead to insure this ship in the London insurance office for £500, the adventure thereon to commence from her arrival at Fort St. George, and thence to continue till the said ship, with her ordnance, apparel, &c., should arrive at London, and that it should be lawful for the said ship, in the said voyage, to stay at any port or places without prejudice, and that the ship was, and should be rated at interest or no interest, without further account; in consideration whereof Halhead paid £15 premium, being at the rate of £3 per cent, which was the current premium then, upon the ship at and from Fort St. George, and a label of such agreement was, the 7th of August 1733, entred in a book, and subscribed by Halhead and two of the directors, and the policy should have been made pursuant thereto ; but, upon looking into the policy, it appeared, that by a mistake the policy was made out different from the label, and instead of the ship's being insured from the time she should arrive at Fort St. George as it ought to have been, according to the label, the insurance is made by the policy to commence only from the departure of the ship from Fort St. George to London ; and therefore the Company insisting, that in regard the ship was lost in the river of Bengal, and not in her voyage from Fort St. George to London, the plaintiffs are not intitled to recover on the policy, and for this reason the plaintiffs have brought their bill against the defendants,the Company, to be paid £500 with interest, having the usual abatements in case of loss. [546] The Eyles came to Fort St. George in February 1733, in her way to England ; but being leaky, and in a very bad condition, upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...to be assured, lost (2) m -not at the trial, by the evidence of the person in whom the mistake originated. 2 Salk. 444, Bates v. Gfrabbam. 1 Atk. 545, Motteux v. London Assurance Company.(b) It is essential that, in all contracts of insurance, the greatest good faith should be (b) The stat.......
-
Archbold v Lord Howth
...H. L. 109. (12) 3 M. & K. 282. (5) 4 Taunt. 779. (13) 1 Salk. 289. (6) 3 Q. B. 68, 1009. (14) 16 C. B. 117. (7)10 M. & W. 147, 157. (15) 1 Atk. 545. (8) 1 C. B. 951. (16) 9 Hare, 162. THE IRISH REPORTS. contemplates that something more than a mere acceptance remains to be done-as that a for......
-
Alotau Enterprises Pty Limited and Allen Enterprises Pty Limited v Zurich Pacific Insurance Pty Limited (1999) N1969
...Company Ltd v Body Corporate Strata Plan No 4303 [1983] 2 VR 339, Parsons v Bignold (1846) 15 LJ Ch 379, Motteux v London Assurance Co (1739) 1 Atk. 545, Henkle v Royal Exchange Assurance Co (1749) 1 Ves. Sen. 317, NSW Medical Defence Union Ltd v Transport Industries Insurance Co Ltd (1986)......
-
Small and Others against Gibson
...the same view was taken : and it appears to have been that of Lord Hardwicke in Motteux v. The Governor and Company of London Assurance (1 Atk. 545, 547). The cases cited for the defendant are of no weight on this point. The Court did not intend to decide it in Hollingworth v. Brodrick (7 A......