Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

Wilson v Backhouse

Maclean & Robinson's Appeal Cases English Reports Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1796
Date01 January 1796
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 215

LINCOLN'S INN

Wilson
and
Backhouse

Thursday, March 2. wilson v backhouse. (A warranty of a ship being American does not mean that she is American built, but that she is the property of an American subject An American subject cannot trade from England to [ndia (a)z.) Assumpsit on a policy of insurance on a moiety of the ship " Argonaut," at and from Bourdeaux to Philadelphia-" American.1' The ship was Italian built, but belonged to a person of the name of Collins, resident in Philadelphia Collins was by birth an Englishman, and was not a denizen of the United States until after the treaty acknowledging their independence. It [120] appeared that the ship was freighted with English goods, laden dt London, and that it was intended to tranship these goods into another vessel at the Madeiras, for the purpose of being exported thence to Bengal Lord Kenyoii said that, by the word American in the policy, he would not understand that the vessel was American built, but merely that the person interested was a citizen and denizen of the United States. As far as concerned Collms's civil ngiits, he might be considered an American , he was a denizen of that country, under the protection of its government He could not, it was true, so far throw off his allegiance to the Crown of England, under which he was born, as to conspire the death of the King, adhere to his enemies, or commit any other of the treasons mentioned in the statute of Edward [[[ without being amenable to the laws of this country ; but the only warranty in this case was, that the ship did not belong to a person or subject of and resident in any of the belligerent countries at the time of effecting the policy On that ground, therefore, he thought the plaintiffs case could not be objected to , but it appeared to him that this freighting was directly contrary both to the Navigation Act and the statute confining the right of trading to the East India Company (12 Car II c 18 , see also 3 Geo IV c 43 , 9 & 10 Will. Ill c 44 ) Though the risk on this policy was not to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT