Legal Opinion

Fulton Ins. v. Milner, Tinsley & Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1853PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. John A. Cuthbert. Assumpsit by Milner, Tinsley & Co. against the appellant on a valued or closed policy of insurance on seventy-eight boxes of manufactured tobacco, shipped from New York to Mobile on the brig Sarah Brown, sixty of which were injured on the voyage to an extent exceeding fifteen per cent., the minimum stipulated in the policy.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. John A. Cuthbert. Assumpsit by Milner, Tinsley & Co. against the appellant on a valued or closed policy of insurance on seventy-eight boxes of manufactured tobacco, shipped from New York to Mobile on the brig Sarah Brown, sixty of which were injured on the voyage to an extent exceeding fifteen per cent., the minimum stipulated in the policy. “ There was evidence conducing to show that about six boxes were injured by the dangers of the sea, so as to affect the tobacco itself; while only the exterior of the boxes of the remainder…

1Opinion of the CourtLigon, J.

The first assignment of error was not insisted upon, either in the argument or brief of the counsel for the appellants. It must, therefore, be considere as waived.—Van *427Eppes v. Smith, 21 A. R. 317; Cunningham v. Carpenter, 10 A. R. 109.

The second arises upon the second charge given by the court below, in relation to the rule by which partial losses on valued policies of insurance are adjusted by the custom in the city of Mobile.

The evidence fully justified the court in submitting the question of the existence or non-existence of this custom to the jury in the manner in which it is presented…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railroad v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
  2. Rastetter v. ReynoldsIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Traders' Insurance v. DobbinsTennessee Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Guilford v. HicksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
  5. Mobile & Montgomery Railway Co. v. JaySupreme Court of Alabama · 1878

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API