Leavenworth v. Delafield
New York Supreme Court
These were two actions on policies of assurance [*574] from *Hew York to Havre de Grace. The first on the freight valued at 2,000 dollars; the other on the ship valued at 7,000 dollars.
Read the full summary
These were two actions on policies of assurance [*574] from *Hew York to Havre de Grace. The first on the freight valued at 2,000 dollars; the other on the ship valued at 7,000 dollars. The facts, as they appeared from the case, were these : 23d July, 1801 — The vessel sailed from'Hew York on the voyage insured. 4th Sept. 1801 — She was captured in the British channel and carried into Ramsgate. 12th ¡Nov. 1801 — An abandonment was made on both policies to the defendants in the two causes, which they refused to accept. 4th Jan. 1802 — She was liberated, and afterwards sailed for Havre, where…
1Opinion of the CourtLivingston, J.
It is matter of surprise that questions, which must frequently have occurred in so commercial a country as Great Britain, and where so large a capital is employed in insurance, have not been decided in any of her courts. We must therefore, endeavor to discover what is reasonable and most conformable to the ancient laws and usages of other commercial nations; for, where precedents are not to be found, the practice of such countries may be deemed the best guide on the subject of maritime law.
We are, then, first, to determine whether wages and provisions, during a detention after capture, form a…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Coolidge v. Gloucester Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
- United Insurance v. LenoxNew York Supreme Court · 1801
- Bell v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Lee v. GrinnellThe Superior Court of New York City · 1856
- Mutual Safety Ins. v. Cargo of the GeorgeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1845
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.