Moxon v Atkins
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 March 1812 |
| Date | 07 March 1812 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1354
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Saturday, March 7, 1812. moxon v. atkins (Policy on goods " at and from the ship's loading port or ports in Amelia Island to London." The ship never touched at Amelia Island, but took in her cargo at Tigre Island, which lies a little farther up the river St Mary's Held, that the policy nevertheless attached, this being the usual mode in which ships in that trade take in their cargoes ) This was an action on a policy of insurance on goods on board the '' Sheddens," " at and from the ship's loading port or ports in Amelia Island to London ' Amelia Island lies near the mouth of the river St Mary's, which divides Spanish America from the territories of the United States There is no port of any sort in the island A little farther up the river is Tigre Island, which is quite uninhabited Here sliips generally he to take on board the produce of the interior country brought down the river, although in some instances they make fast to Amelia Island by an anchor put on shore, and load there Having taken in their cargoes at Tigre Island, they drop down to Amelia Island, abreast of the town of Amelia, the residence of the Spanish Governor, where they pay duties, and obtain their clearances. [201] The " Sheddens " on the voyage in question, without touching at Amelia Island, took in her cargo at Tigre Island This consisted of lumber brought down the river. She then set sail, paid the duties, and obtained her clearance at Amelia Island in the manner above described , and was lost by the perils of the sea on the voyage home The Attorney-General for the defendant, contended, that under these circumstances the policy had never attached The ship had never been at any loading port or ports in Amelia Island, and had taken in no goods there Amelia Island, and Tigre Island were as distinct as Great Britain and Ireland What the secret understanding of the parties might be was immaterial. The contract between them mast be gathered from the language of the policy ; and that made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Same v Bateman
...mistake might be set right (a) See also 1 Camp. 503, Vallance, v. Dewar. Ibid. 505 n. Ougier v. Jenyns. Ibid. 508 n. Kingston v. Knibbs. 3 Camp. 200, Moxon v. Atkins. 1 Taunt. 463, Grant v. Paxton. Selwyn, N. P. 963. [See also Peake, 43, Chaurand v. Angerstein. But the usage must be general......
-
Lewis and Others v Marshall and Another
...n. (a), 6th edit.), Vallance v. Dewar (1 Campb. 503), Ougier v. Jennings (ib. 505, n.), Noble v. Kennoway (2 Dougl. 510), Moxon v. Atkins (3 Campb. 200), Robertson v. Clarke (1 Bingh. 445, 8 J. B. Moo. 622), Bottomley v. Forbes (5 N. C. 121, 6 Scott, 816, 1 Am. 481), Codcbwrn v. Wright (6 N......
-
Pearson v The Commercial Assurance Company
...Pelly v. Royal Exchange Aaeoeiation Company, 1 Burr, 341; Bond v. Consales, 2 Salk. 445; Vallance v. Dewar, 1 Camp. 503 ; Moxon v. Atkins, 3 Camp. 200 j Lindsay v. Janson, 4, H. & N. 699; Newman v. Cazalet, Park on Ins. 000; Long v. Allen, Ibid. 797; Salvador v. Hopkins, 3 Burr. 1707; And t......