Lockwood v. Sangamo Insurance
Supreme Court of Missouri
I. The instructions inform tbe jury that this boat, in order to be seaworthy, was required to be able to endure the ordinary perils of navigation on the Missouri river. And such is the law. (1 Phillips on Ins. 544; 2 Sumn. 197.) In other words, if the boat was lost by any injury, cause or peril not extraordinary in its character, the defendant could not be held liable.
Read the full summary
I. The instructions inform tbe jury that this boat, in order to be seaworthy, was required to be able to endure the ordinary perils of navigation on the Missouri river. And such is the law. (1 Phillips on Ins. 544; 2 Sumn. 197.) In other words, if the boat was lost by any injury, cause or peril not extraordinary in its character, the defendant could not be held liable. But the court further instructed the jury, in effect, to return a verdict for the plaintiffs if they found that the boat was lost from any peril of the river — utterly ignoring the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary…
1Opinion of the CourtBliss, Judge
The defendant issued to the owners, for the use of plaintiffs, a policy of insurance upon the steamer Bridgeport, bound for the upper Missouri. The boat was sunk a little below Sioux City, and this suit was brought to recover the amount of the *74insurance. The defense was based upon the alleged misconduct of the master, who was one of the owners, and a large amount of testimony was offered upon both sides, making a ponderous record, but the only questions of law preserved are raised by the instructions.
The first, given at the instance of the plaintiffs, instructed the jury that the steamer, to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bradlie v. the Maryland Insurance CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- Griswold v. Union Mut. Ins.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1854
3Cited by1 opinion
- Lockwood v. Atlantic Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870