Page images
PDF
EPUB

PLEA
SANTS

ซ.

voice into dollars, at the rate of 46 cents per ruble, and deducting therefrom the 36,900 dollars covered by the eight prior policies, then his remaining interest to be covered by this policy would be more than the 6,000 MARY'D. dollars insured thereby.

The only question saved by the bill of exceptions at the trial below, was whether the Plaintiff should recover according to the first or according to the latter mode of calculation.

The Plaintiff contended for the latter, but the Court over-ruled him, and directed the jury that he was only entitled to recover according to the former-they found a verdict accordingly: whereupon the Plaintiff brought his writ of error.

The point was now submitted to the Court without argument, by HARPER for the Plaintiff in error, and JONES and PINKNEY for Defendant.

[ocr errors]

February 21st....All the Judges being present,

JOHNSON, J, delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:

This is the case of an insurance on a voyage from St. Petersburgh or Cronstadt to Philadelphia, effected in the year 1810. The vessel was captured and the assured abandoned. The only difficulty arises on the principles upon which the loss shall be adjusted.

Besides this policy, eight others were effected in Philadelphia. In seven of them no valuation was at tached to the ruble. In the eighth it was valued at 40 cents, and on this, which was the ninth in order, at 46 cents. In settling the seven first the ruble was estimated at thirty-three and a third cents, which was the received value at Philadelphia. On the eighth it was settled at the stipulated value of 40 cents. The value of goods laden on board the ship was proved to be 95,565 rubles. The sums paid on the eight first policies corresponded to the adjusted value of 94,084 rubles, leaving a balance of only 1,481: equal, at 46 cents, to about 682 dollars unpaid. But if the whole amount of VOL. VIII.

8

INS. CO.

PLEA

the cargo be brought into dollars at 46 cents to the ru SANTS ble, and the sum in dollars actually paid on the other policies be deducted, there will still remain more unpaid MARY'D. than would exhaust the whole sum underwritten on the INS. Co. ninth policy.

ช.

On the part of the Defendant it is contended that the compensation paid to the Plaintiff on the other policies, is absolute and complete as to the corresponding amount in rubles, leaving only 1,481 unpaid. On the other hand, the Plaintiff contends that the compensation was only relative, and cannot affect his rights as between himself and this Defendant. And of this opinion is the majority of the Court.

The object to be attained is, to secure to the assured a fair indemnity under all the advantages which he has purchased of the insurers.

The intention of the parties, in attaching a fixed value to the ruble, appears in the order for insurance, to wit: to distinguish between the paper and specie ruble."

It is very well known that the ruble is the money of account in Russia. It was originally a coin corresponding in value to the American dollar. But by the forced circulation of a paper representative of the ruble, dependent on nothing but mere national faith or national force for its value, the silver ruble has nominally doubled or trebled itself in value. The astonishing and rapid fluctuation in its value appears from the evidence in this case, in which it is stated that in the year 1810 it varied from forty-eight to twenty-five cents.

To secure the assured against the effects of this fluctuation, was the object of the parties in attaching a sperific value to the ruble; and as the whole cargo would be affected in value by this cause, and the policy was pon the cargo generally, we are of opinion that no other principle in calculating the loss would afford him the indemnity stipulated for in the policy.

The principle contended for by the Defendant is subject to this obvious objection that it is not reciprocal.

Had the adjustment of the value of the ruble in the other cases exceeded forty-six cents that adjustment would not in any respect have resulted to his benefit.

[ocr errors]

PLEA-
SANTS

บ.

MARY'D.

There is one difficulty of which the Court are fully INs. co. aware, which is, that the interest assigned in the abandonment if estimated in rubles will be inversely as the rate at which the ruble is estimated, so that he who pays most would acquire least. But in this case the objection does not arise; as the Plaintiff by a compromise with the underwriters on some of the other policies has reserved a sufficient interest in the subject of abandonment, to meet the just claims of these underwriters. And in no case would this consideration create a difficulty as between the parties to a policy. Among the underwriters alone in the distribution of the proceeds of the thing abandoned would it be necessary to determine on the correct rule to be applied in such a

case,

Had the policy, which is the subject of this suit, been a valued policy, and declared the value of the whole cargo to be $43,929, the actual amount at the stipulated valuation of the ruble, the same objection would have presented itself, but certainly would not have availed to prevent a recovery.

The judgment below must therefore be reversed and the case remanded.

M.CALL AND AL.

ซ.

THE MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY,

ERROR to the Circuit Court for the district of If a policy inMaryland.

This was an action on a policy underwritten by Defendants, upon all kinds of lawful goods and chandize, on board the ship Cordelia, on a voyage the Island of Teneriffe, to Surabaya, and at and

sures against "unlawful arrests, res

the traints and demer- all kings, prinfrom ces," &c. the from "unlawful," qualification,

tainments of

M'CALL

v.

well to "res

to "arrests;"

case, a detain

ment by a

peril insured

thence to Philadelphia, warranted American property. The ship sailed on the voyage, on the 5th of April, 1811, MARINE having on board a cargo of lawful goods, the property of INS. Co. the Plaintiffs, of the value of 15,000 dollars, and pursued the voyage until the 18th of July following, when, beextends in its ing in a place called Madura Bay, within about twelve operation as hours sail of Surabaya, she was boarded by an officer traints and de- of a British frigate, forming one of a squadron, then tainments" as actually blockading the port of Surabaya, and all the and in such other ports of the islands of Java and Madura. The frigate took possession of the Cordelia, and conducted her force lawfully to the admiral commanding the blockading squadron, blockading a who, on the next day, dismissed the Cordeila, after inport is not a dorsing her papers, and warning the master not to enagainst by a ter the port of Surabaya, or any other port in the island policy contain- of Java, or of the island of Madura, on pain of capture. ing a warranty of neutrality. On the same day, the Cordelia made another attempt to enter Surabaya, but was chased by the same British frigate, and taken possession of a second time. After being detained two days, the Cordelia, was again released, and the master was ordered to depart instantly from the coast of Java, and the neighborhood of Surabaya, upon penalty of capture, and impressment of his men. The master, finding it impracticable to pursue his voyage further, resolved to return to Philadelphia, where he arrived on the 19th of November, 1811. At the time of sailing on the voyage from Teneriffe, the blockade of Java was unknown to the parties. The Plaintiffs abandoned to the Defendants, immediately after the arrival of the Cordelia at Philadelphia, which gave them the first knowledge of the occurrences. The Defendants refused to accept the abandonment.

[ocr errors]

The policy contained the usual risks, except that the word unlawful," was printed before "arrests," so that the clause stood, "unlawful arrests, restraints, and detainments of all kings, princes, or people of what nation, conditim or quality soever." The declaration alleges, that the ship and cargo were, during the voyage," by persons acting under the authority of the British government, and by a certain ship of war belonging to that government, unlawfully seized, restrained, and detained," and thereby become totally lost.

The Circuit Court directed the jury, that, on this

state of facts, the Plaintiffs were not in law entitled to M'CALL recover; to which the Plaintiffs excepted and brought this writ of error.

HARPER, for the Plaintiffs,

Insisted that this direction was erroneous; because the voyage was broken up, and lost.

1st. By men of war ;—

2d. By detention of princes; the blockade having prevented the accomplishment of the voyage.

That the Plaintiff's had therefore a right to abandon, and were entitled to recover for a total loss.

In support of his argument, he cited the case of Barker v. Blakes, 9 East, 280, cited also in 2 Marshall, 835, Appendix.

JONES, contra.

This case is very distinguishable from that of Barker v. Blakes.

1st. In that case, the voyage was interrupted as to the ultimate and only port of destination. Here, there was an interruption as to an intermediate port only, which cannot, we contend, constitute a total loss. The adventure from Teneriffe to Philadelphia, might have been as profitable as the accomplishment of the whole voyage.

Another distinction between the two cases arises from the different phraseology employed in the respective policies. The English policy employs general words, so as to include any detention of princes, &c. Here, the policy is limited to unlawful detention of princes, &c. Unless, therefore, this detention can be shown to be unlawful, the case is not within the policy; and it is clear, that it was not unlawful, unless the blockade was But this is not contended; the blockade was main-` tained by an adequate force, and was in every respect conformable to the law of nations.

SÓ.

v. MARINE

INS. CO

« EelmineJätka »