Waters v Monarch Fire & Life Assurance Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1856 |
| Date | 19 January 1856 |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 705
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 102; 2 Jur. N. S. 375; 4 W. R. 245. Referred to, Seagrave v. Union Marine Insurance Company, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 319. Distinguished, North British Insurance Company v. Moffatt, 1871, L. R. 7 C. P. 30. Referred to, Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Insurance Company, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 615.
[870] william waters waters and barnabas steel against the monarch fire and life assurance company. Saturday, January 19th, 1856. Plaintiff made with defendants a policy of insurance against fire, in which plaintiff was described as a corn and flour factor; the policy was, amongst other things, on goods in his warehouses, and on "goodsin trust or on commission therein." The defendants covenanted to make good any damage by fire to the property insured. The plaintiff was a wharfinger and warehouseman : he had in his warehouses goods belonging to his customers, which were deposited with him in that capacity, and on which he had a lien for the charges for cartage and warehouse rent, but no further interest of his own. No charge was made to the customers for insurance; nor were they informed of the existence of the policy. The plaintiffs' warehouse was consumed by fire, with all the goods in it. The defendants paid the value of plaintiffs own goods, and the amount of his lien on his customers' goods; but refused to pay the value of the customers' interest in the value of the goods beyond tbe Hen.-Held : that the goods of the customers were in trust, within tbe meaning of the policy; and that plaintiff was entitled to recover the entire value. [S. C. 25 L. J. Q. B. 102; 2 Jur. N. S. 375; 4 W. R. 245. Referred to, Seagrave v. Union Marine Insurance Company, 1866, L. R. 1 C. P. 319. Distinguished, North British Insurance Company v. Moffatt, 1871, L. R. 7 C. P. 30. Referred to, Bbsworth v. Alliance Marine Insurance Company, 1873, L. R. 8 C. P. 615.] The declaration contained three counts, of which the first and third are alone material to the present case. The first and third counts were both on policies of insurance against fire on goods, effected by the plaintiffs with the defendants. Pleas: To tbe first count, except as to 34241. 6s. 2d.: That the plaintiffs were not, before or at the time of the loss in that count mentioned, interested in the property in the policy described and thereby intended to be insured, except as to 34241. 6s. 2d.; and payment into Court of 34241. 6s. 2d. To the third count, except as to 3671. 10s. 5d.: That the plaintiffs were not, before and al the time of the loss in that count mentioned, interested in the property in the policy described and thereby intended to be insured except as to 3671. 10s. 5d.; and payment into Court of 3671. 10s. 5d. The plaintiffs took the sum* paid into Court out of Court, and joined issue on the other pleas. On the trial, before Lord Campbell C.J., at the [871] Guildhall sittings after last Trinity Term, a verdict was found for the plaintiffs on the first and third counts, with 6431. 10s. 7d. damages, subject to the opinion of the Court on a case in substance as follows. The plaintiffs are flour merchants, warehousemen and wharfingers, and carry on their business in Holland Street, Blackfriara Road. They do not receive goods on consignment or commission, nor sell on commission. The defendants are an insurance Company against fire. On the 7th March 1851 the plaintiffs effected with the defendants a policy, being the policy on which tbe plaintiffs seek to recover under the first count. The material parts of the policy were as follows: " Whereas Messrs, Waters cfe Steel of Holland Street, Blackfriars, corn and flour factors, have paid the sum of 61. 3s. to the directors of The Monarch Fire and Life Assurance Company, London, and have agreed to pay or cause to be paid the sum of 61. 3s. yearly, on the 25fch day K. B. xlvut.-23 706 WATERS V. THE MONARCH LIFE ASSURANCE CO. 5 EL. & BL 872. of December, during the continuance of this policy for insurance from loss or damage by fire, nob exceeding in each case the sum or sums hereinafter specified, upon the property herein described, in the place or places herein set forth and not elsewhere (unless allowed by indorsement previously made), on each article: viz. 30001. on stock in trade and utensils in their warehouse situate in Holland Street aforesaid ; 4001. on goods in trust or on commission therein ; 1001. on fixtures or fittings in the same; 1001. on the steam engine, boiler and machinery, in the engine house forming part of the said warehouse; 5001. on live and dead stock, arid utensils in stabling adjoining the above mentioned warehouse, not exceeding 401. on any one...
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
-
Re King, decd
...he was unaware of it at the time at which it was entered into. See ( Waters v. Co. Ltd. Monarch Fire & Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 5 E. & B., 870); ( London and North Western Railway v. Glynn 1 E. S.652King v. Jones (1814)5 Taunt. 418 at p. 428, 4M. & S. 188, and Raymond v. Fitch (1835)......
-
Tomlinson (A.) (Hauliers) Ltd v Hepburn
...Respondents were bailees of the cigarettes when they were stolen. I think that the law was accurately stated by Lord Campbell in Waters v. Monarch Insurance Co. (1856) 5 E. & B. 870. In that case a bailee, a wharfinger, had insured against fire not only his own goods but also goods "in trus......
-
Ramco (UK) Ltd and Others v International Insurance Company of Hannover Ltd and Another
...principle] on a logical basis so as to cut down an exception, if it be an exception, which has stood unchallenged since the decision in Waters case more than a century ago." 17 8. Of course as the judge points out the question whether the bailee has insured the goods of others and which goo......
-
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd
...must have an insurable interest in the goods, and this generally means that he is either a part-owner or bailee (see Waters v. The Monarch Fire & Life Assurance Co. (1856) 5 El. & Bl. 870), in which case the rule may be an extrapolation from the exception last-mentioned and so not a true ex......