Randal v Cockran
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
| Judgment Date | 17 June 1748 |
| Date | 17 June 1748 |
English Reports Citation: 27 E.R. 916
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Randal
and
Cockran
See Yates v. Whyte, 1838, 4 Bing. N. C. 283; Dickenson v. Jardine, 1868, L. R. 3 C. P. 643; Stringer v. English, &c., Insurance Company, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 692; Rankin v. Potter, 1873, L. R. 6 H. L. 118; Simpson v. Thomson, 1877, 3 App. Cas. 285, n.; Midland Insurance Company v. Smith, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 567. Distinguished, Burnand v. Rodocanachi, 1882, 7 App. Cas. 337. See Castellain v. Preston, 1882, 8 Q. B. D. 617, and on appeal in 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 405.
eandal v. gockran, June 17, 1748. [See Tales v...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
18 cases
-
St Paul Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v Dargan
...cited by Lord Templeman and Lord Goff were cases involving the insurer's rights to the proceeds recovered by the assured: Randal v. Cockran (1748) 1 Ves. Sen. 98; Blaauwpot v. Da Costa (1758) 1 Ed. 130; Yates v. White (1838) 1 Arn. 85; White v Dobinson (1844) 14 Sim 273; Commercial Union As......
-
Morris v Ford Motor Company Ltd
...too, does not depend on the contract itself but on the "plainest equity". At any rate, Lord Hardwicke said so, see Randel v. Cockram (1748) 1 Ves. Sen. 98 as explained in Yates" v. Whyte (1838) 4 Bing. N.C. 272 at page 283. But this entitlement does not amount to an assignment of the right ......
-
Caledonia North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd
...of insurance between them may ordinarily enforce, in the insured's own name, any right of recourse available to the insured: see Randal v Cockran (1748) 1 Ves Sen 98; Mason v Sainsbury (1782) 3 Dougl 61, which Lord Mackay has cited; London Assurance Company v Sainsbury (1783) 3 Dougl 246;......
-
Napier and Ettrick (Lord) v Hunter
...by allowing him to sue in the name of the insured person against the wrongdoer if the insured person refuses to pursue the action. 16In Randal v. Cockran (1748) 1 Ves. Sen. 99 a vessel was insured against loss and the insurance company paid the amount of the insurance when the vessel was ca......
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Rights of relief, subrogation and unjustified enrichment in Scots law
...(1st Div). 33 Simpson & Co v Thomson (1877) 5 R (HL) 40; rev Burrell v Simpson & Co (1876) 4 R 177 (1st Div).34 Randall v Coc kran (1748) 1 Ves Sen 98; Mason v Sainsbury (1782) 3 Doug 61; Clark v The Hundred of Blything (1823) 2 Barn & Cres 254; Yates v Whyte (1838) 3 Bingham New Cases 272.......