Hurtin v. Union Ins. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
This was a case agreed. The insurance was made on the freight of the same vessel, the Monongahela Farmer, (valued at 3,000 dollars;) on which a policy was effected, and the case tried last term.2 The evidence was-the same. It appeared in this case, as in that, that the supra-cargo was prevented from carrying the cargo from Algesiras, without security not to carry it to a British port; which security he could not give.
Read the full summary
This was a case agreed. The insurance was made on the freight of the same vessel, the Monongahela Farmer, (valued at 3,000 dollars;) on which a policy was effected, and the case tried last term.2 The evidence was-the same. It appeared in this case, as in that, that the supra-cargo was prevented from carrying the cargo from Algesiras, without security not to carry it to a British port; which security he could not give. The cargo was sold under the superintendence of the judge, on the petition of the supra-cargo; and the vessel and cargo remained in custody of the king’s guards till the sale of…
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.
If the cargo is not conveyed to the place of its destination, no freight can be demanded. If voluntarily accepted at any other port, by the owner or his supra-cargo, freight, pro rata itincris, is due. But if it is received by compulsion, and the supra-cargo or captain is acting for the best, for the benefit of all concerned, with a view to preserve it for the person entitled to receive the proceeds, no freight is earned; and a contradictory doctrine would make it the interest of the owner of the cargo or his agent, to sacrifice the cargo, or leave it to perish…
2Cited by3 opinions
- C. W. Adams & Co. v. HaughtTexas Supreme Court · 1855
- Scow No. 190 & Four Hundred & Fifty Bales CottonDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1898
- One Thousand Bags of Sugar v. HarrisonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1893