Rickards against Murdook and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Date | 01 January 1830 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 546
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 Man. & Ry. 418; LI. & W. 132; 8 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 210. Overruled, Campbell v. Rickards, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 845.
kickards against murdock AND another. 1830. A merchant resident at Sydney shipped goods for England on board the ship " C.," and by another ship, that sailed after her, wrote to an agent in England, and desired him, if he received that letter before the " C." arrived, to wait for thirty days, in order to give every chance for her arrival, and then effect an insurance on the goods. The letter was received, and the agent having waited more than thirty days, employed a broker 10B.&C.528. RICKARDS V. MURDOCK 547 to effect an insurance, and handed the letter to him. The broker told the underwriters when the "C." sailed, and when the letter ordering the insurance was written, but he did not state when it was received, nor the order to wait thirty days after the receipt of it, before the insurance was effected. The " C." never arrived. In an action on the policy, no fraud was imputed to the plaintiff; but several underwriters were called for the defendant, who stated, that in their opinion the matters not communicated were material; and the jury being of opinion that a material part of the letter had been concealed, found a verdict for the defendant: Held, that the evidence of the underwriters' opinion was properly received, and that even without it the jury would have been bound to find that the part of the letter not communicated to the underwriters was material, and that, consequently, the policy was void. [S. C. 5 Man. & Ry. 418; LI. & W. 132; 8 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 210. Overruled, Campbell v. Eickards, 1833, 5 B. & Ad. 845.] Covenant on a policy of insurance on goods by the ship " Cumberland," at and from Sydney to London, effected by the plaintiff as agent for one Robert Campbell, and for his use and benefit, with the Indemnity Mutual Insurance Company, of which the two defendants ,were directors. The claim was for a total loss by perils of the seas. Plea, first, non est factum. Upon the second, third, and fourth pleas no question arose. The defendants pleaded, fifthly, that before the time of the making and executing of the policy of insurance, to wit, on the 28th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1827, to wit, at London, the said Robert Campbell sent from Sydney to one Harris at London a letter containing the order for effecting the said policy by a certain other ship called the " Australia," which had set sail and departed from Sydney a long time, to wit, more than a month after the said ship called the " Cumberland " had set sail therefrom on her voyage in the policy mentioned; and that he, the said Robert Campbell, then and there instructed the [528] said Harris to deliver the said letter to one William Emmett, who had before then sailed from Sydney to London, on board the said ship called the " Cumberland," on the said voyage, in case he the said William Emmett should have arrived in England when the said Harris should òreceive the said letter; but if the said William Emmett should not have then arrived, the said Robert Campbell then and there instructed the said Harris to retain the said letter in his possession for the space of thirty days from the time when he should receive it, and at the expiration of that time to deliver the same to the plaintiff, and òcertain other persons using the style and firm of Messrs. Rickards, M'lutosh, and Co., he, the said Robert Campbell, having then and there, in the said letter, intimated that he had directed the said Harris not to deliver the said letter to the said persons using the said style and firm of Messrs. Rickards, M'Intosh, and Co., until the expiration òof thirty days after the arrival of the said ship called the " Australia," in London aforesaid, in order to give every chance for the said William Emmett's arrival in England before the said letter containing the said order should be delivered to the said Messrs. Rickards, M'Intosh, and Co. (he, the said Robert Campbell, thereby meaning that unless he, the said William Emmett, did arrive in England before the òexpiration of the said space of thirty days after the arrival of the said ship "Australia," in London, he, the said Robert Campbell, had little hope that the said ship called the " Cumberland " would arrive in safety with the said William Emmett on board thereof at London aforesaid). That the said letter was dated at Sydney on the 28th May 1827, and that it stated that the said vessel, called the "Cumberland," sailed on the said voyage on the 25th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1827. That [529] before the making and executing of the said policy, to wit, on the 8th day of October, in the year of our Lord 1827, the said ship "Australia" did arrive from Sydney at London with the said letter; and that the said Harris did receive and detain the said letter so consigned to him as aforesaid, in his possession for thirty òdays and more after the receipt of the said letter; and at the expiration of that time, to wit, at London aforesaid, did deliver the same to the plaintiff, who, thereupon, then and there caused the said policy to be made and executed as in the declaration òmentioned. That the plaintiff did not disclose, nor was it disclosed to the defendants or the said company, before or at the time of making and executing the policy, that the said letter came by the ship "Australia," or that the "Australia" had sailed from 548, RICKABDS V...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salter against Purchell
...is assumed that the replication is used only in actions of tort. [Maule J. The replication was used in covenant, in Hie/cards v. Murdoch (10 B. & C. 527).] The parties there did not ohoose to raise the question by demurrer. [Tindal C.J. I under-[211]-stand you to apply your remarks to the p......
-
Gibbons v Mottram
...viz. the non- (J) See vol. i. p. 244 c. n. (7), to Craft v. Boite; vol. ii. p. 295, n. (1), to White v. Stubbs; 5th edit. (d) 10 B. & C. 527, 5 Mann. & Eyl. 418. So, in Courtney v. Taylor, Mich, vaca tion, 7 Viet, post, 851. And see the cases there referred to. (e) See the cases collected i......
-
R v Holboyd
...materiality of the fact not so communicated (ib Bufe v Turner (6 Taunt. 338) ; Lwdenau v. Desborough (8 B. & C 586) , Rickards v Murdock (10 B & C. 527)) [3$7] But if the doctrine of the agency can be carried thus far, it is obvious that no man can effect an insurance on the life of another......
-
Samuel Anderson, in Error, v Anne Fitzgerald, Administratrix of Patrick Fitzgerald
...3 Burr. 1905. Scanlan v. Sceales 6 Ir. Law Rep. 367. Quin v. The National Assurance Company J. & Car. 316. Rickards v. MurdockENR 10 B. & C. 527; S. C. 1 S. L. Cas. 283. Sayre v. RochfordUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 1169. Rich v. Basterfield 16 Law Jour. N. S. 273. Cohen v. HuskissonENR 14 M. & W. 95. Gea......