Wedmore v. Wedmore. See Wedmore, Re. | Wing v. London General Omnibus Co. 3 B. R. West v. Bristol Tramways Co. 4 B. R. C. 243 s. c. [1908] 2 K. B. 14, 77 L. J. K. B. N. S. 684, 72 J. P. 243, 99 L. T. N. S. 264, 24 Times L. R. 478, 52 Sol. Jo. 393, 6 L. G. R. 609. Western Morning News Co., McQuire v. West Leigh Colliery Co. v. Tunnicliffe & Hampson, 5 B. R. C. 916-s. c. [1908] App. Cas. 27, 77 L. J. Ch. N. S. 102, 98 L. T. N. S. 4, 24 Times L. R. 146. Westminster, Chaplin & Co. v. C. 79 s. c. [1909] 2 K. B. 652, Wingfield, Moore v. West Rand Cent. Gold Min. Co. v. R. 5 B. Wise v. Perpetual Trustee Co. 5 B. R. C. R. C. 885- -s. c. [1905] 2 K. B. 391, W. H. Chaplin & Co. v. Westminster, [1901] Wheeler, Herdman v. v. White, 3 B. R. C. 552-s. c. [1906] Whitford v. Corkum. See Conrad v. Cork um. Whiting v. De Rutzen, [1905] 1 Ch. 96. Widgeon, Heath v. Willis v. Young, 3 B. R. C. 976-s. c. [1907] 1 K. B. 448, 76 L. J. K. B. N. S. 752 s. c. [1903] A. C. 139, 72 L. J. P. C. N. S. 31, 51 Week. Rep. 241, 87 L. T. N. S. 569, 19 Times L. R. 125. Woolston, The. Sce Odesso, The. Worthington Corp. v. Heather, 4 B. R. C. 280 s. c. [1906] 2 Ch. 532, 75 L. J. Ch. N. S. 761, 22 Times L. R. 750, 4 L. G. R. 1179, 95 L. T. N. S. 718. Wrigley v. Gill, 4 B. R. C. 814 s. c. [1906] 1 Ch. 165, 75 L. J. Ch. N. S. 210, 54 Week. Rep. 274, 94 L. T. N. S. 174. Yangtsze Ins. Asso. v. Indemnity Mut. M. Assur. Co. 5 B. R. C. 53 s. c. [1908] 2 K. B. 504, 77 L. J. K. B. N. S. 995, 99 L. T. N. S. 498, 24 Times L. R. 687, 52 Sol. Jo. 550, 13 Com. Cas. 283. 390, 71 J. P. 6, 96 L. T. N. S. 155, Yates v. Terry, 5 B. R. C. 446-s. c. [1902] 23 Times L. R. 23. Wilmer's Trusts, Re, 4 B. R. C. 479-s. c. [1903] 2 Ch. 411, 72 L. J. Ch. N. S. Wilson v. Carnley, 1 B. R. C. 901- 1 K. B. 527, 71 L. J. K. B. N. S. 282, 50 Week. Rep. 293, 86 L. T. N. S. 133, 18 Times L. R. 262. Yorkshire Miners' Asso., Denaby & C. Main Collieries v. [1908] 1 K. B. 729, 77 L. J. K. B. Young, Willis v. 5 B. R. C. British uling Cases [ENGLISH DIVISIONAL COURT.] NICKELS & COMPANY v. LONDON & PROVINCIAL MARINE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. 70 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 29. Also Reported in 17 Times L. R. 54, 6 Com. Cas. 15. Insurance against "all consequences of hostilities or warlike operations" — Blockade of port of destination — Ship returning to port of loading-Liability of insurer for expenses. The plaintiffs effected with the defendants a policy upon 810 bags of rice by a vessel named from Liverpool to any port in Cuba. The policy was expressed to be against “all consequences of ... hostilities or warlike operations." The vessel sailed from Liverpool for Havana, and in the course of the voyage war was declared and hostilities began between the United States and Spain, and Havana was blockaded. On learning this at a port of call, the master, under powers conferred upon him by the bill of lading, refused to proceed with the voyage, and returned to Liverpool. The plaintiffs paid the freight and incurred certain other expenses:-Held, that the defendants were not liable upon the policy, as the plaintiffs' loss was due, not to the consequences of hostilities, but to a proper exercise by the master of his discretion under the bill of lading. (November 16, 1900.) ACTION tried before Mathew, J. The action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover a sum of 53£ 3s. 9d.. under a policy of marine insurance upon 810 bags of rice. The plaintiffs shipped the rice on board the Spanish ship Serra under a bill of lading from Liverpool to Havana. The bill of lading contained a clause: "In case of war, blockade. or other cause which may prevent the vessel entering the port to which she is bound, or that as a consequence of such or similar events the captain shall not consider it prudent to enter the said port .. the goods shall be delivered to the consignee, or failing same deposited at the nearest port which will admit them and which the captain may consider convenient. The delivery effected by the captain at the nearest port that may receive the goods shall be considered as final delivery, the [30] whole of the freight being considered earned." On April 13, 1898, the plaintiffs effected a policy on the rice with the defendants by the steamship Serra "from Liverpool or Birkenhead to all or any port or ports, place or places, of call discharge in Cuba with liberty to call at Canary Islands." and or The policy was only against risks excluded by the free of capture and seizure clause. The excluded risks were specified in a slip attached to the policy: "Warranted free of capture, seizure, and detention, and the consequences thereof, or any attempt thereat, piracy excepted, and also from all consequences of riots, civil commotions, hostilities, or warlike operations, whether before or after declaration of war." In April, 1898, the ship sailed from Liverpool for Havana with the cargo of rice. Shortly afterwards war was declared and hostilities began between the United States and Spain, and Havana was blockaded by the fleet of the United States. The vessel called at Las Palmas, in the Canary Islands, and the master, having heard of what had taken place, refused to proceed with the voyage to Havana, and took the vessel back to Liverpool. The rice was there discharged, some of it being sold, and some stored. The plaintiffs' claim in respect of the freight which they had to pay, and expenses in connection with the discharge and warehousing of the rice. J. D. Crawford, for the plaintiffs. The question is whether the loss was caused by hostilities or the consequences of hostilities. The loss was as much due to the hostilities as if the vessel had been pursued by a cruiser and had been lost in evading the pursuit; or as if, with the object of evading pursuit, she had taken refuge in a place where there was little protection and had been lost in consequence. She only returned to Liverpool in order to avoid the risk of capture, which she would have incurred if she had pursued her voyage to Havana. [He referred to O'Reilly v. Gonne [1815] 4 Campb. 249, 16 Revised Rep. 788; O'Reilly v. Royal Exchange Assurance [1815] 4 Campb. 246, 16 Revised Rep. 786, and the judgment of Wills, J., in Isitt v. Railway Passengers Assurance Co. [1889] 22 Q. B. D. 504, 60 L. T. N. S. 297, 37 Week. Rep. 477, 58 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 191.] J. A. Hamilton, for the defendants. The loss in the present case was not a proximate consequence of any peril insured against. The goods were never out of the control of the carriers, as was the case in Rodocanachi v. Elliott (1873) L. R. 8 C. P. 649, 42 L. J. C. P. N. S. 247. The cases of Blackenhagen v. London Assurance Co. (1808) 1 Campb. 454, 10 Revised Rep. 729, 13 Eng. Rul. Cas. 650, and Hadkinson v. Robinson (1803) 3 Bos. & P. 388, 7 Revised Rep. 786, shew that where an embargo or fear of captures obliges a vessel to turn back, and loss follows, the loss is not directly caused by the perils insured against, although the fear may be perfectly reasonable. In the present case the hostilities were not the causa proxima of the loss. [He also cited Ionides v. Universal Marine Insurance Company [1863] 14 C. B. N. S. 259, 32 L. J. C. P. N. S. 170, 10 Jur. N. S. 18, 8 L. T. N. S. 705, 11 Week. Rep. 858, 14 Eng. Rul. Cas. 271, and Pink v. Fleming [1890] 25 Q. B. D. 396, 59 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 559, 63 L. T. N. S. 413, 6 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 554.] J. D. Crawford replied. Mathew, J.: I am of opinion that there has been no loss under the policy. There was no capture or seizure, and no attempt to capture or seize within the first part of the clause in 53£ 3s. 9d.. under a policy of marine insurance upon 810 bags of rice. or The plaintiffs shipped the rice on board the Spanish ship Serra under a bill of lading from Liverpool to Havana. The bill of lading contained a clause: "In case of war, blockade other cause which may prevent the vessel entering the port to which she is bound, or that as a consequence of such or similar events the captain shall not consider it prudent to enter the said port... the goods shall be delivered to the consignee, or failing same deposited at the nearest port which will admit them and which the captain may consider convenient. . The delivery effected by the captain at the nearest port that may receive the goods shall be considered as final delivery, the [30] whole of the freight being considered earned." On April 13, 1898, the plaintiffs effected a policy on the rice with the defendants by the steamship Serra "from Liverpool or Birkenhead to all or any port or ports, place or places, of call discharge in Cuba with liberty to call at Canary Islands." and or The policy was only against risks excluded by the free of capture and seizure clause. The excluded risks were specified in a slip attached to the policy: "Warranted free of capture, seizure, and detention, and the consequences thereof, or any attempt thereat, piracy excepted, and also from all consequences of riots, civil commotions, hostilities, or warlike operations, whether before or after declaration of war." In April, 1898, the ship sailed from Liverpool for Havana with the cargo of rice. Shortly afterwards war was declared and hostilities began between the United States and Spain, and Havana was blockaded by the fleet of the United States. The vessel called at Las Palmas, in the Canary Islands, and the master, having heard of what had taken place, refused to proceed with the voyage to Havana, and took the vessel back to Liverpool. The rice was there discharged, some of it being sold, and some stored. The plaintiffs' claim in respect of the freight which they had to pay, and expenses in connection with the discharge and warehousing of the rice. |