Suydam v. Marine Insurance Co.
New York Supreme Court
On a former argument of this cause, in May Term last, the Court were of opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover for a total loss, and-awarded a new trial..
Read the full summary
On a former argument of this cause, in May Term last, the Court were of opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover for a total loss, and-awarded a new trial.. The cause came now before the Court on a case containing the same facts, the right to recover for a partial loss having been disputed by the defendants.— In the report of the former case, (vol.l. p. 181.) the facts are so fully stated, that it is only necessary to subjoin three several statements submitted to the court, as to'the rule of calculating the amount of the partial loss, in ease ihe court should be of opinion…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. The questions raised upon this new case, are, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover for a partial loss, and if so, by what rule shall that partial loss be estimated.
The plaintiffs are entitled to recover as for a partial loss. The delay at St. Jago cannot be considered as amounting to a deviation, because, under the'circumstances disclosed by the captain, it does not appear to have been an unreasonable and wilful delay. It was created by probable and flattering expectations of a permission to enter, and the captain acted according to…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Cates v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- O'Donnell v. RodigerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Griffith v. Frederick County BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1834
- Thatcher v. McCullohDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1846
- Brooks v. EnbergHawaii Supreme Court · 1859
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.