4. In a policy on a vefTcl in a diftant port
from whence flie is to fail, and ftated to
be there on a certain day, "at and
from" mean the day on which (he is
mentioned to be there, and the policy
takes effect from thence. It is not nc-
ceffary to difclofe how long a veffel has
lain in port antecedent to a policy. The
two per cent, deducted on a total lofs, is
in cafes of difaftcr a part of the premi-
um. Kemble v. Bowne, 75

7. All damages arifing immediately from a

jettifon are to be contributed for, tho*
they happen to perifhable articles which
are enumerated in the memorandum
and remain in fpecie. Freight and veffel
are to be eftimated in a general average
at the place where the one is paid, and
the other is at the time of fettling.
M'Grath Is" Higgint v. I. B. Church,

8. A general policy unaccompanied with any

warranty, covers, if made by a neuter,
war rifles of all kinds, and againft all
countries. Under fuch circumftanccs
a falfe clearance is immaterial and need
not be difclofed. Seaworthiness is al-
ways implied, and never at the rifle of
the underwriter. Barmuallv. Church,


cargo, it is not a waiver of the aban-
donment, though on her arrival at her
home port fhc be fold at auction by the
affured for more than fhe coft, and he
at the time of action brought have the
proceeds in his hands. Nor need he
make a tender of her to the under-
writer when the arrives, nor of her pro-
ceeds after fale. Abbot v. Broome, 292
II. The implied warranty of feaworthinefs
in a veffel is, that fhe fliall be able to
perform her voyage with the cargo with
which then loaded. ibid.

13. If, after a veffel has been abandoned, fhe
arrive in port, and be there fitted out
by her former owners, and fent on ano-
ther voyage, it will be a waiver of the
abandonment. Saidlcr v. Church, (n.)


14. Receipt of freight earned by a veffel

abandoned is not a waiver of the aban-
donment if the underwriter did not ac-
cept. Abbot v. Broome, 292

15. A warranty of being the property of an

American citizen is proved by reputa-
tion, employ and domicil. Intereft in
a veffel, by a perfon who faw the origi-
nal regifter in the name of the owner,
when fhe was about to fail on the voy-
age infured. Intereft in a cargo, by
knowing the articles bought by the
plaintiff and feeing them go on board.
Toprovc an abandonment parol evidence
is admifliblc, and it is not ncceffary to
give notice to produce the letter of
abandonment, to enable to fhew in evi-
dence the original of which it was a
copy. Peyton 'j. H.illttt, 363

16. Neither an acquittal nor a reftitution of

goods prejudice an abandonment once
duly made. In cafe of a reftitution of
goods to an owner, at a port into which
a veffel is carried, he is not bound to
fend tht m on to their port of deftina-
tion. Though an adjuftnient made by
the agent of the out-door underwriters
docs not conclude the infurcr from
fhewing errcrs in it, if they do not dif-
fent, they arc bound. Borda v. Halldt,


9. Under a general policy on goods, the af-

furcd need not difclofe that his intereft
is only of an undivided part, but may
recover according to his intereft. If a
veffcl be captured and acquitted, the in-
furer is liable to the expenfes incurred in
profecuting an appeal intcrpofed againft
the fentence condemning the affurvd in
cofts, and to obtais compenfatiou for
damages occafloned by plundering or
embezzling, though the expenfes fur-
pafs the amount of the underwriter's
fubfeription. Whether the expenfes in-
curred in an appeal be reafouable or not
is matter for a jury. Lmtvrcnce 15"
Whitney v. Van Horn* t7* Clarlfon, 476

10. A representation that a man has been na-

turalized " fince" a particular time, docs
not mean that he has been fo "ever
fince.'* Coulon v. Bovine, 288

11. If a veffel be rendered,by the perils infur-

ed againft, unable to proceed with her
original cargo, it is a lofs of the voyage,
though fhc may be able to perform it
with another more buoyant. When a
veffel cannot be repaired for half her
value fhe may be abandoned. If a veffel
be duly abandoned, and refufed, and al-
ter a fale for the benefit of all concerned,
under an order of a court of admiralty,
pronouncing her not worth repairing,
fhe be bought in by a part owner fuper-

17. If both infured and infurer in a policy

containing the ufua! claufc of warranty
againft contraband, know there is con-
traband on board, the warranty will ap-
ply only to the goods affured. Bvune
v. Shaii't 489

18. In a policy on cemmiflions on lawful

goods, the warranty on contraband is
not broken, though the affured be cap-
tain, and confignec of illicit articles,
fhipped on, board without the know-
ledge of the underwriter. De Pry/rcr
IS" Charlton ■». Gardner, 492

19. Id judging whether a veffel has been loft
in a voyage infured, the ufual, and not
the utmoft length of fuch a voyage is
the period on which the jury is to pro-
ceed. If two ftorms are given in evi-
dence.on a policy for time, the one with-
in and the other without the period, it
is for the jury to fay in which the lofs
happened. An infurance on freight and
cargo after a knowledge of a ftorm does
not conclude the jury from finding the
veffel loft in a-previous ftorm. Brvwn
tS" Kimitrly v. Ncitfen tS" Bunlcr, $*S

ao. Property warranted to be neutral muft
not only have every document neceffary
to prove its neutrality, according to trea-
ties and the law of nations, but it muft
not be accompanied with any papers to
compromit its neutral character. If un-
der fuch a warranty on goods, the out-
ward cargo appear to have produced left
than the homeward one cou, the allured
in a voyage from a belligerent country
muft fhew that the excels was derived
from neutral funds. Bfoggc v. Un. In.
Com. 549

31. If a commander of a convoy make a
friendly capture of one 6! his convoy,
it will not exonerate the underwriter,
and is a cafe of abandonment as for a
total lofs. Govcrneur £9* Kemble v. Un-
ln._ Com. 59*


See Covenant, 1.



See Average, 1. Carrier, 1. Infurance, 1.


See Manhattan Company, t. Practice,

Judges' Certificate.

See Practice, 75. 77.87- 94-
Judges' Charge.

See Practice, 47. 49.

Judges' Notes.

See Practice, 7J.


See Bond, 1. a. Cognovit. Efcmpe, I. Prac-
tice, a. 16. is- 44- j6. J7- 8i. 86.95.

1. A judgment in a fifter ftate it only prima
facie evidence of a debt, and the confi-
deration examinable in oar courts.
JSiUicoet iff Fittb v. Aiticm, 46a

See Infurance, 9.15. Prifoner, 1. Judgment, as in Cafe of Nonfuit.

Intrufion. See Nonfuit.

IntruCon for a forfeiture of lands granted
in fee will not lie before office found.
Intrufion muft be on the actual poffef-
fion of the people. Tit PeopU v.
Brovin, 4l6


See Practice, S9-

I. A younger ifiue being tried at a circuit it
not always condufive that an older
might have been brought on. Wttd v.
£llit. ilj

Judgment Interlocutory.

See Practice, 2. a*. 44.


See Forcible Entry and Detainer, 1. h*
dictment, 1. Jufticcsi. Practice, 48.


See Struck Jury.

See Practice, $s- Witnefs, 7.

The juftices' court has no jurifdiction in
fuits by, or againft executors or admi-
niftrators. Way v. Cany, 191

The declaration in a juftices court fhould
be fo far formal as to fhew the caufe of
action, or it will be fatal on error.
Houghton v. Strong, 486

See Evidence, 3. Libel, 2.

Probable caufe of feizure is not a juftifica-
tion to a cuflom-houfe officer, feizing
under the revenue laws of the United
States. He (sizes at his own peril.
Inlay v. Sandt, j66


See Collateral Iffues, 1. Indictment, I.


See Sheriff, 3. II.

See Pra&ice, 78.

. The denying any difrefpectful intention in
a libellous publication on the court, is no
juftification, if the words publiihed be,
in the opinion of the court, contemptu-
ous. The People v. Freer, 485

,. The intent of a publication will not juftify
it, if, in the opinion of the court, it be
a contempt againft them. The People v.
Freer, Jl8

|. Sending a libellous letter to the plaintiff
himfelf is not a ground for an action by
him. Every letter fent is prefumed to
have been fealed. In an action for a
libellous letter, the plaintiff muft fhew a
publication. Stating it to have been,
"by means of its being fent to and re-
ceived by" the plaintiff is bad, and, as
(hewing on the face of the record no

publication,,is good caufe for arrefting
the judgment. Lylt v. Cfa/on, J8i



See Practice, 9.

I. A mandamus lies to the court of common
pleas for not figning a bill of exceptions.
Tie People v. tie Judgei of Wajbington
County, J"

Manhattan Company.

If a judge under the fixth fection of the
act incorporating this company, grant
a warrant, for the appointing apprai-
fers, lie cannot revoke it. A free-
holder of the city of New-Yolk is under
that fection incompetent to act as an
appraifcr of the damages done in the
ftreets by laying the Manhattan pipes.
Corporation v. Manhattan Company, 507


Se« Grant, 1.

Matters of Ships.

See Breach of Orders, 1.

Memorandum in a Policy.

See Infurance, 7.


See Practice, 18. 57.

Military Lands.

. Under the Act of the 8th of January,
1794, for regiftcring deeds of military
lands, &c a prior deed not depofited in
the clerk's office, is void againft a fub-
fequent purchafer for a bona fide confi-
deration, whofe deed is depofited.
Jaei/on, ex. dem. Potter ». Huhourd, 81

See Practice, 8. 16.51. 57.

Non-enumerated Motion.

See Practice, 18.3*. Rule*, a.


See Evidence, 3.

Money had and received.

I. In this action the plaintiff muft fliew a
right in himfelf. Mayor, t-fc. of New-
Ttrk v. Scott, 543

Money, paying into Court.

See Practice, 10. 94.

Mute, Standing.

See Collateral Ifluet, 1.

N *

See Inforance, 10.


See Infurance, 8. 20.


See Corporation, a. Manhattan Company, 1.

New Evidence.

See Practice, a*.

New Trial.

See Evidence, a. Practice, 10. it.

Nifi Prius Record.
Sec Praflice, 83.


See Practice, 65. 8a.


See Practice, 4. 16. 16. 37. 38. 47. c6. 60.
66. oj.

I. Though unavoidable drcumfiances may-
be an excufe for not having judgment a*
in cafe of nonfuit, yet they vnU not ex-
cufe cofla. RuJJil v. Bali, iji


See Bill of Exchange, 1. Evidence, 4. In-
furance, 15. Practice, 3. 5. 6. 8. 13.
31- 3»- 37- 41. 44- SO- Jl. 53- 5*-
59. 60. 71. 80. 87.

Obligation. Obligor. Obligee.

See Bond.

Office found.

See Intrufion, 1. People, 1.

Onondaga Lands.

See Military Lands. Practice, 6a.


Sec Poflcflion, 1.
Papers noticed to be produced.
See Evidence, 4. Infurance, 15.

Parol Evidence.
See Evidence, 6. Infurance, 15.
Partners and Partnership.

See Promiffory Note, 4.

. Fails from which a partnerfhip may be
inferred are matter for a jury, and
fhould be rebutted by evidence. An
indorfement by one of a firm in his
name and company, is good to bind the
other partners, though the firm has al-
ways been known by the name of an-
other partner and company, unlefs it
be {hewn that there it fuch a diftinft
houfe as that by the (lile of which the
indorfement is made. Drake and another
v. Mlwyn and ethers, . 184

. An indorfement in the name of a firm by
a partner, is good, and may be declared
on as the indorfement of the firm.
Manhattan Company v. Ledyard, 102


See Practice, 7. 14. 45.


Sec Infurance, 5.


See Pleas and Pleading, I.

People, The.

The people can acquire feifin or pofleflion
of lands granted in fee for a breach of
condition, only by matter of record and
office found. The People v. Brrwn, 416

See Slander, I.


I. There is no fettled fee for phyficians in
the city of New-York for taking a ftu-
dent. Hart v. Ho/ace, 15


SecAffumpfit, 2.
Pleas and Pleading.

See Award, t. Forcible Entry and Detain-
er, 1. Frauds, Statute of, 1. Limita-
tions, 1. Libel, 3. Slander, I. Tref-
pafs, 2.

I. An averment of being " ready and pre-
"pared to execute a conveyance accord-
"ing, &c. but that the defendant did
"not attend, and has refufed," isa fuf-
ficient ftating of an offer to perform by
the plaotiff. Miller v. Drake, 45

Policy of Infurance.

See Abandonment, 1. Adjuftmcnt. Ave-
rage, 1. Infurance. Seaworthinefs.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

Perifliable Articles.

See Infurance, 7.


See Sheriff, 3.

« ForrigeFortsett »