BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Gourock Ropework Co. v. Fleming [1867] ScotLR 3_262 (21 February 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/03SLR0262.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 3_262, [1867] SLR 3_262 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 262↓
Issues to try a right to recover under a policy of Marine Insurance, the defence being that the ship had deviated, and the answer to that defence that the defender knew of the deviation when he entered into the contract.
The pursuers of this action sue the defender, who is a merchant in London, for £300, being the extent to which a policy of marine insurance over a cargo of hemp, shipped to the pursuers on board the steamer Cronstadt, was underwritten by him. The steamer sailed from Cronstadt on 19th November 1864, but foundered at sea and was lost, with all its hands and cargo, on 30th November. The defence was, that the defender was liberated from his obligation under the policy, in consequence of the Cronstadt having deviated from her course and towed into Revel Roads a ship called the Agincourt, which was loaded with Government supplies for the Amoor. It was admitted that the owners of the Cronstadt had received £2000 for salvage services in saving the Agincourt. The defender averred that the average voyage from Cronstadt to Leith was six days, and that had there been no deviation the steamer would have reached Leith five days before she was lost. The pursuers' reply to this defence was that the fact that the Cronstadt had gone to Revel was known to the defender when he entered into the policy, but this the defender denied.
The following issues were to-day adjusted for the trial of the cause, viz.:—
“It being admitted that the defender granted the policy of insurance, No. 7 of process:
“Whether, in or subsequent to November 1864, during the currency of the said policy, goods belonging to the pursuers, on board of the teamer Cronstadt, mentioned in the said policy, were lost by the perils of the sea insured against; and whether the defender is, under the said policy, resting-owing to the pursuers in the sum of £300, or any part thereof, with interest thereon at the rate of £ 5 per centum per annum, from 2d January 1865 till payment?”
Counter Issue for Defender.
“Whether the steamer Cronstadt deviated from the voyage set forth in the said policy of insurance?”
Additional Issue for Pursuers.
“Whether the defender undertook the obligation contained in the said policy in the knowledge that the steamer Cronstadt had deviated from the voyage set forth in the said policy?”
Counsel for Pursuers— Mr Clark and Mr Shand. Agents— Duncan & Dewar, W.S
Counsel for Defender—Dean of Faculty and Mr Hunter. Agents— Morton, Whitehead, & Greig, W. S.
