Heyliger v. New-York Firemen Insurance
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, dated the 8th December, 1810, on 74 hogsheads of sugar, at and from St. Croix to New-York, on board the British schooner Success, William Forbes, master.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, dated the 8th December, 1810, on 74 hogsheads of sugar, at and from St. Croix to New-York, on board the British schooner Success, William Forbes, master. Markoe and Masters, who caused the insurance to be effected, as agents of the plaintiff, were the consignees and agents of the owners of the vessel, and of the cargo on board belonging to the owners, and were also the consignees and agents of the owners of the residue of the cargo, not belonging to the owners of the vessel, excepting one barrel of sugar. The cargo consisted of 17 tierces and 50…
1Per curiam
The claim of the plaintiff is just and legal. The expenses were incurred in labouring for the safety and recovery of the cargo from shipwreck, and the general contribution is founded on the most equitable principles. The expenses were incurred for the common benefit. The doctrine of the defendant’s counsel is inapplicable. The expense of conveyance, in another vessel or boat, strictly so considered, ought to fall on the shipowner, and not on the shipper of the goods. But this was not that case. The vessel was stranded, and the cargo and vessel in jeopardy, and here was a joint effort and…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lewis v. WilliamsThe Superior Court of New York City · 1829
- Morse v. Pomroy Coal Co.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1896
- Hughes v. Sun Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1883