Mason & Leef v. Franklin Fire Insurance
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of Covenant, brought by the appellants against the appellees, on the 27th April, 1841. The plaintiffs declared upon the policy mentioned in the bill of exceptions, and the defendant pleaded they had not broken their covenant, with leave to both parties to give any matter in evidence which might be given under any other plea. Errors of pleading were waived.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of Covenant, brought by the appellants against the appellees, on the 27th April, 1841. The plaintiffs declared upon the policy mentioned in the bill of exceptions, and the defendant pleaded they had not broken their covenant, with leave to both parties to give any matter in evidence which might be given under any other plea. Errors of pleading were waived. At the trial of the cause, the plaintiffs, in order to support the issue on their part, gave in evidence the policy of insurance declared on, of the Franklin Fire Insurance Company of…
1Opinion of the CourtArcher, J.
We agree with the court below, that the policy did not cover the articles, for the loss of which by fire, this suit was instituted to recover.
We have no proof of usage in the port of Baltimore, in relation to this subject, which would control or govern the contract of the parties. What was the usage in other ports of the Union, could not be considered as entering into the views of the parties in the formation of the contract.
The case must, therefore, be decided by the language which the parties themselves have used in the covenant of insurance.
This is a valued policy “on a new barque now…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Eichelberger v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1863