180g. STRACHEY against TURLEY. direction to tax the cofts was given. And this is not like the cafe cited of the award, because the arbitrator there had made a valid award in the first instance, and therefore a fecond award was an excefs of his authority. The 24th fection does not extend to distinct petitioners in different petitions, but only to joint petitioners in the same petition. BAYLEY J. This is a remedial legiflative provifion, and therefore there ought to be fuch a conftruction put upon the words as will make the remedy effectual for the purpofe to which it was meant to be applied. I confider the taxation and certificate on which the action is brought as the first valid taxation and the firft valid certificate of the cofts. If there were feparate petitions against the fame return, the act meant that there should be a feparate taxation upon each; and so the Court have decided; and therefore the first and fecond certificates were void, because the cofts in the different petitions were taxed jointly in both of them. How then, upon the conftruction of a remedial act can it be faid, that a feparate and valid taxation or certificate is not good, because former taxations and certificates made were invalid. It is next objected that the authority does not extend to the Speaker of another parliament: but it is agreed that the act to be done is merely minifterial, and may as well be performed in refpect of the object by one Speaker as by another. The act mentions the Speaker generally; and though it do not add for the time being, yet if fuch a conftruction be neceffary to advance the remedy, we muft fo conftrue the general words. No injuftice can enfue from fuch a conftruction; but great injuftice would enfue from a narrower one; for immediately after a report made of a frivolous and vexatious petition, parliament might be dif folved 13 folved before any taxation could be made, of which I remember an instance: and then if the Speaker in the next parliament could not direct the taxation and grant a certificate, the remedy would altogether fail. Poftea to the Plaintiffs. 1809. STRACHEY against TURLEY. FORSTER and Others against CHristie. THIS HIS was an action on a policy of insurance in the ufual form, effected on the 8th of Oftober 1807 by the plaintiffs, and fubfcribed by the defendant for 400l. on woollens, on board the ship Wolga, upon a voyage at and from Hull to the Sound and St. Petersburgh, at a premium of ten guineas per cent., to return 27. per cent. for convoy to the Sound or Belts, and 21. per cent. more for any convoy in the Baltic and arrival. In the margin of the policy was a memorandum, that in cafe of partial lofs or damage the neat proceeds were to be the bafis of contribution. The interest was stated by the declaration to be in Dawson, Burrel, and Co., and the lofs was averred in different counts to have happened of the goods and of the voyage by the perils of enemies, and by the arreft, restraint, and detainment of kings, princes, and people, and was also specially described according to the facts hereinafter ftated. There were alfo counts for money had and received, and upon an account stated. The goods in question belonged to Dawson, Burrell, and Co., merchants of Wakefield, and were shipped by them on board the Wolga, a Britifh fhip at Hull, in Octo Fufday, A British fhip infured from Hull to Se. Pe tersburgh, having failed under convoy to the Sound, was af. terwards stop ped in her courfe by a king's ship in the Baltic from of hoftilities for an apprehenfion then proceeded to a point of 11 days, and rendezvous for convoy, where The waited 7 days longer, and then failed under convoy officer received intelligence that till the king's a hoftile embar go was laid on Britifh fhips at St. Petersburgh, when he ordered the fleet back to the place of ren dezvous, from whence the ship this lofs of the voyage was not attributable to the arreft or detainment of kings, &c. but immediately to the fear of the hoftile embargo in the port of deftination, and therefore not within the policy; though if the hip had not been detained in the first instance, by the king's officer, the would have arrived in time at St. Petersburgh to have delivered her cargo before the embargo. ber, 1809. FORSTER againft CHRISTIE ber 1807; on the 10th of which month fhe failed with convoy to the Sound, where fhe arrived on the 16th. She proceeded on her voyage, and was at anchor off the town of Drago on the 20th, when she was boarded by the crew of a boat from his majesty's brig Mufcata, with orders for the Wolga to put herself under the protection of the king's fhips in Copenhagen Roads; and the boat's crew remained on board to enforce obedience to the orders. The Wolga weighed anchor accordingly, and came back to Copenhagen Roads, where the remained until the 31st, when she went to Helfingberg Roads for convoy, and remained there waiting for convoy until the 7th of November, when the failed on her voyage under convoy of his majesty's floop of war the Ganet.. The Wolga proceeded on her voyage in the Baltic until the 16th of November, when the commander of the Ganet informed the captain of the Wolga that an embargo was laid on the 15th on all British fhips in the Ruffian ports, and ordered the Wolga to proceed no further on her voyage, but to keep clofe by him, and that the Wolga fhould receive orders from the commander in chief in Copenhagen Roads as to her future deftination. When the Wolga arrived off Copenhagen fhe was ordered by the king's officers to proceed down to Helfingberg Roads; and afterwards the captain, under all the circumftances of the cafe, thought it best to proceed to England, which he did accordingly under convoy of his majefty's brig the Providence, and arrived at Hull on the 11th of December 1807. An embargo was in fact laid in the ports of Ruffia upon all British hips on the 15th of November 1807, and war was declared and hoftilities commenced by Ruffia against Great Britain on the 18th of December 1807, and continued from that time to the prefent. If the Wolga, however, had not been been detained by the king's officers fhe would have arrived according to the ufual courfe of the voyage at St. Petersburgh, and delivered her cargo there, previous to the laying on of the embargo. Upon the fhip's arrival in the Humber, the goods infured were fafely landed and depofited in the fame ftate as when firft put on board in the warehouses of the plaintiff's agents, where they remained when the action was brought. On the 28th of December the plaintiffs abandoned the goods to the defendant and the other underwriters. A verdict was taken at the trial for the plaintiff, fubje& to the opinion of this Court on the facts above ftated: and if the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, the verdict was to ftand: otherwife, a nonfuit was to be entered. Taddy, for the plaintiffs, contended that the voyage had been loft by a peril infured against, and therefore the affured were entitled to abandon. The voyage might have been performed but for the detention of the king's offi cers; and fuch a detention is within the terms of the infurance against "arrefts, reftraints, and detainments of "all kings, princes, and people of what nation, condi " but tion, or quality foever." The general word capture has indeed been held (a) not to extend to British capture; that is on the ground of public policy, because it tends to throw the lofs on British subjects instead of upon the enemy, and fo to paralize the warfare of the ftate: but nothing of state policy intervenes in this cafe; for where the contract of infurance is between two subjects of the realm, and the queftion is on whom a certain lofs is to fall which must take place, the state has no intereft in the (a) Vide Kellner v. Le Mefurier, 4 Eaft, 396. 402, and Lubbock v. Potts, 7 Eaft, 451. 1809. FORSTER againft CHRISTIE decifion, 1809. FORSTER againf CHRISTIE. decifion, unless it be that the burden fhould be divided as much as poffible, which it is the object of fuch a contract to effect. Where a lofs may fall upon fome one or other of innocent fubjects, in order to promote the general welfare against the acts of an enemy, there can be no reason why one fubject fhould not contract to indemnify another against the risk; in like manner as landlord and tenant often contract to indemnify each other againft certain taxes; which, as between themselves, if not specially directed otherwife by law, is good. Suppose it had been neceffary for the public fervice to have taken the ship altogether in order to employ her against the enemy, by whom she had been captured or damaged, on what principle could it have been contended that the underwriters would not have been liable (a). In Green v. Young (b), where a British ship was feized by the government and converted into a fire ship, Lord Holt at nifi prius confidered that the underwriters would be liable: and this opinion was approved of by Lord Kenyon in Rotch v. Edie (c). And in Gofs v. Withers (d) Lord Mansfield fays, that by the general law the affured may abandon in the cafe merely of an arreft on an embargo by a prince not an enemy. The opinions of foreign jurists are strong to this effect as in 2 Val. 134. If after the voyage commenced the ship put into a harbour, be it into the fame or any other, and be there stopped by order of the king, the affurance fhall have effect, fo that the affured may abandon in the fame manner as if it were the act of a foreign prince. [Lord Ellenborough C. J. asked, on which act of (4) Vide Park on Infurance, chap. 4. 6th edit. p. 106. &c. where seve、 ral late cafes are mentioned. (b) 2 Ld, Ray. $40, and 2 Salk. 444- (e) 6 Term Rep. 422, 3. detention |