Hoogland v. Wight
The Superior Court of New York City
This is an appeal from the judgment entered upon the report of E. E. Marbury, Esq., the referee, in favor of the plaintiff. The action was brought by the general assignees of Messrs. Lane, West & Co., to recover from the defendant moneys paid by that firm, as ships’ husband in the year 1855 and 1856, to insure defendant’s interests in the schooners Emeline and Kate Stewart.
Read the full summary
This is an appeal from the judgment entered upon the report of E. E. Marbury, Esq., the referee, in favor of the plaintiff. The action was brought by the general assignees of Messrs. Lane, West & Co., to recover from the defendant moneys paid by that firm, as ships’ husband in the year 1855 and 1856, to insure defendant’s interests in the schooners Emeline and Kate Stewart. The defendant sets' up that he did not authorize the effecting of the insurance, and denies that the plaintiffs’ assignees expended the moneys claimed.
1Opinion of the Court
By the court, Moncrief, Justice.
It is well settled that one part owner, though he be also managing owner, (ship’s husband,) cannot, by ordering an insurance of a ship, without authority from another, charge the other with any part of the premium, unless the other afterwards assent, to the insurance. (Abbott on Shipping, 107,137; French agt. Back-house, 5 Burr. 2727, 5th Am. Ed.; Bell agt. Humphries, 2 Starkie, 345 ; 2 Duer on Ins., 200.)
The referee found that the defendant did authorize insurance to be made upon the vessels by Lane, West & Co.
A report of a referee, like the verdict of a jury,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Mitchell v. ChambersMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Hartford & New Haven Railroad v. New York & New Haven RailroadThe Superior Court of New York City · 1865
- Ritter v. CushmanThe Superior Court of New York City · 1867
- Loonam v. MyersNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1886
- Lincoln v. LincolnThe Superior Court of New York City · 1866
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.