Kendrick v. Delafield
New York Supreme Court
This was an action on an open policy, “at and from New-York “ to Curracoa,” on goods shipped on board the schooner Reindeer, and consigned, by the bills of lading, to tbe captain, who bad been, together with the crew, provided by a person to whom the vessel was chartered.
Read the full summary
This was an action on an open policy, “at and from New-York “ to Curracoa,” on goods shipped on board the schooner Reindeer, and consigned, by the bills of lading, to tbe captain, who bad been, together with the crew, provided by a person to whom the vessel was chartered. The declaration contained two counts, one stating the loss to be by the barratry of tbe master, the other by the perils of the sea.(a) From the testimony of tbe master, it appeared that tlie .vessel, while chased and under a press of sail, sprung *a leak, in consequence of which he bore away for Santa Cruz; in running for…
1Opinion of the Court
Thompson, J.-
The first question that appears to arise out of this case is, what we are to understand by the term barratry in a policy of insurance. In the case of Nutt v. Bordieu, (D. & E. 330,) Lord Mansfield says, barratry is something contrary to the duty of the master and mariners, the very terms of which imply that it must be in the relation in which they stand to the owners of the ship. An owner cannot commit barratry; he may make himself liable by his fraudulent conduct to the owner of the goods, but not as for barratry. It cannot be committed against the owner, with his consent, for…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Williams v. NicholsNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- American Insurance v. DunhamNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Crafts v. Union Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1858
- Mumford v. Phoenix InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Purvis v. TunnoSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1803