Pawson v Watson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1778 |
| Date | 16 May 1778 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 98 E.R. 1361
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY AND COMMON PLEAS
Referred to, Smith v. Chadwick, 1882-84, 20 Ch. D. 41; 9 App. Cas. 187.
200WP. 788. PAWSON V. WATSON 1361 pawson versus watson. Saturday, May 16th, 1778. A warranty inserted in a policy of insurance, must be literally and strictly complied with.-A representation to the underwriter, need only be substantially performed. But if false in a material point, it will avoid the policy. [Keferred to, Smith v. Chadwick, 1882-84, 20 Ch. D. 41 ; 9 App. Cas. 187.] Upon a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted in this case, Lord Mansfield reported as follows : This was an action upon a policy of insurance. At the trial it appeared in evidence, that the first underwriter had the following instructions shewn him: "Three thousand five hundred pounds upon the ship "Julius Caesar," for Halifax, to touch at Plymouth, and any port in America: she mounts 12 guns and 20 men." These instructions were not asked for or communicated to the defendant; but the ship was only represented generally to him, as a ship of force: and a thousand pounds had been done, before the defendant did any thing upon her. The instructions were dated the 28th June 1776, and the ship sailed on the 23d July 1776; and was taken by an American privateer. That at the time of her being taken, she had on board 6 four pounders, 4 three pounders, 3 one pounders, 6 half pounders, which are called swivels, and 27 men and boys in all, for her crew; but of them, 16 only were men, (not 20, as the instructions mentioned,) and the rest, boys. But the witness said, he considered her as being stronger with this force, than if she had 12 carriage guns and 20 men : he also said, (which is a material circumstance,) that there were neither men nor guns on board, at the time of insurance. That he himself insured at the same premium, without regard or enquiry into the force of the ship. Other underwriters also insured at the same premium, without any other representation than that she was a ship of force. That to every four pounder there should be five men arid a boy. That in merchant ships, boys always go under the denomination of men.-This was met by evidence on the part of the defendant, saying, that guns mean carriage guns, not swivels, and men mean able men exclusive of boys. There were three causes of the same nature,* depending upon the same [786] evidence : the defence in each was, that these instructions were to be considered as a warranty, the same as if they had been inserted in the policy; though they were not proved to have been shewn to any but the first underwriter. In all the three cases, the question reserved for the opinion of the Court is, " whether the written instructions which were shewn to the first underwriter, are to be considered as a warranty inserted in the policy, or as a representation, which would only avoid the policy, if fraudulent?" If the Court should be of opinion, that the instructions amounted to a warranty, then a new trial is to be granted in each, without costs; otherwise, the verdicts are to stand. At the trial I was of opinion, that it would be of very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley
...Co [1981] 3 All ER 289 (QB); R v Meyer 1948 (1) SA 375 (A); Reese River Silver Mining Co Ltd v Smith [1969] LR 4HL 64; Pawson v C Watson 98 ER 1361; Schneider v Heath 3 CAMP 506; New Zealand Construction (Pty) Ltd v Carpetcraft 1976 (1) SA 345 (N); Galante v Dickinson 1950 (2) SA 460 (A); T......
- Manifest Shipping Company Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Company Ltd (Star Sea)
-
Fearnley v London Guarantee and Accident Insurance Company
...Lee v. JonesENR 17 C. B. (N. S.) 482. Macdonald v. The Law Union Fire and Life Insurance CompanyELR L. R. 9 Q. B. 328. Pauson v. WatsonENR 2 Cowp. 785. Towle v. The National Guardian Assurance Society 30 L. J. Ch. 900. Madden v. M'MullenUNK 13 Ir. C. L. R. 305. Mactaggart v. Watson 3. Cl. &......
-
Keenan v Shield Insurance Company Ltd
...must be strict and exact compliance with the obligation or statement which is warranted, so that, as he himself said in Pawsonv. Watson (1778) 2 Cowp. 785, 787, "Nothing tantamount will do or answer the purpose." It is, therefore, not open to the assured to say that the obligation has been ......
-
Table of cases
...270 Pauli v ACE INA Insurance, 2004 ABCA 84 .............................................. 484, 485 Pawson v Watson (1778), 2 Cowp 785, 98 ER 1361 ........................................... 140 Pereira v Hamilton Township Farmers’ Mutual Fire Insurance Co (2006), 267 DLR (4th) 690, 36 CCLI......
-
Disclosure
...v Weems (1884), 9 App Cas 671 at 683–84 (HL) [emphasis added]. 35 Ibid [emphasis added]. 36 See Pawson v Watson (1778), 2 Cowp 785 at 787, 98 ER 1361 at 1362: “There is no distinction better known to those who are at all conversant in the law of insurance, than that which exists, between a ......
-
Goodbye to the Duty of Disclosure in Insurance Law: Reasons to Rethink, Restrict, Reform or Repeal the Duty (Part 1)
...going some way to explain this view, is the statement by Lord Mansfi eld in a subsequent decision, Pawson v Watson (1778) 2 Cowp 785, 98 ER 1361 at 788, 1362 where, in distinguishing between warranties and representations, he observed that a representation, ‘if false in a point of material......
-
RETREAT OF CONTINUING WARRANTIES?
...misstatemenl was not material but held that this question of materiality could not be considered in the light of the basis clause) 11 (1778) 2 Cowp 785. 12 (1786) 1 TR 343. 13 supra note 11. 14 ibid, at 787. 15 supra note 12. 16 ibid, at 345—346. 17 See Poh, supra note 5, at 291. See for ex......