Legal Opinion · Dissent

Thames & Mersey Marine Ins. v. O'Connell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 14, 1898No. 375Published

Appeal from ■ the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California.

1DissentGilbert, Circuit Judge

I am unable to concur with the majority oí the court in holding that the insured in this case used the Suislaw Jliver in violation of the stipulations of flu; policy. It must be presumed that the contract of insurance expressed exactly the risks which the insurance company agreed to assume, The vosel was prohibited from using certain specified ports and places. She was free to go anywhere except to those ports or places. Hhe had the right to traverse the open sea in any direction in going to and from any of the ports which the policy permitted her to use. She undoubtedly had the right to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. Ætna Fire InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
  2. Ma. In. Co. of Alexandria v. J. and Jh TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1806
  3. Catlin v. Springfield Fire Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1833
  4. Snow v. . Columbian Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API