HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0018 and id is 1 raw text is: WEBSTER V. DE TASTET
WEBSTER against DE TASTET. Wednesday, Feb. 8th, 1797. Where a mate of a
ship or a sailor is to receive something at the end of the voyage in lieu of wages,
e.g. slaves, he cannot insure it: nor can he recover the value of such thing in an
action against his agent for negligence in not procuring such an insurance. [2 B.
& P. 119. 2 N. R. 206. 2 Camp. 624.]
[Principle applied, Cohen v. Kittell, 1889, 22 Q. B. D. 683.]
The plaintiff, having been hired to go as a mate in a ship from the coast of Africa
to the Havannah, for which he was to receive wages at the rate of 51. per month, and
three privilege slaves free of expence on the ship's arriving at the port of sale, directed
the defendant, who was his agent at Liverpool, to get an insurance on his privilege ;
and for the defendant's neglect the plaintiff brought this action on the case against
him. It appeared at the trial at the last Lancaster Assizes before Lawrence, J. that
the ship was lost on her voyage, and that the plaintiff thereby sustained a loss of
1501. reckoning 391. 5s. for his chest and clothes, and the rest for the value of the
slaves. It was objected on behalf of the defendant, that the plaihtiff could not
recover the value of the slaves, because they were not the legal subject of insurance,
they being in the nature of seamen's wages. That point was reserved for the opinion
of this Court, a verdict being taken for the plaintiff for 1501. with liberty to the defen-
dant to move to reduce the damages to 391. 5s. Accordingly,
Ward on a former day obtained a rule for that purpose, which was now opposed by
Holroyd, who admitted that if a policy had been effected the plaintiff could not
have recovered the value of the privilege slaves in an action against the underwriters,
but contended that, as in point of fact these kind of slaves were frequently the subject
of insurance by mates at Liverpool where the loss was always paid by the underwriters
without disputing the question, the plaintiff might recover the value of them in this
action, because by means of [158] the defendant's negligence the plaintiff had sustained
the loss. But
The Court were clearly of opinion that the slaves were not the subject of insurance,
and that the plaintiff could not recover in this action more than he could have
recovered in an action against the underwriters. They therefore made the rule
absolute to reduce the damages to 391. 5s.
Rule absolute.
SENAT against PORTER. Wednesday, Feb. 8th, 1797. The plaintiff's agent shewed
to the defendant, an underwriter, the captain's protest containing an account of
the loss of the ship insured, demanding payment: held that this did not entitle
the defendant to read the protest in evidence in an action on the policy.
On the trial of this action on a policy of insurance at the Guildhall sittings before
Lord Kenyon a question arose respecting the admissibility in evidence of the captain's
protest. The facts were these; when Vaux, the broker, applied to the defendant
informing him of the loss and demanding payment, he produced the different papers
relating to the subject, and among the rest the protest signed by the captain ; the
defendant told him he had looked into the papers, but that there was a point in
the case, and he refused payment. On the part of the defendant it was contended
that the protest was made evidence in this case by the plaintiff as a paper delivered
by his agent to the defendant, containing an account of the loss on which he rested
his claim; and therefore that it amounted to a declaration made by the plaintiff to
the defendant of the facts on which he required payment. Lord Kenyon was clearly
of opinion that the protest was not admissible in evidence, and the plaintiff obtained
a verdict.
On a former day in this term the Court reluctantly granted a rule calling on the
plaintiff to shew cause why there should not be a new trial, on the ground that the
protest ought to have been received in evidence, that rule was now supported by
Gibbs who argued it on the ground above stated.
Erskine, Law, and Giles, were to have shewn cause against the rule, but were
stopped by the Court.
Lord Kenyon, Ch.J. Great complaints have been made in the commercial world,
and not without reason, of the enormous expence attending the trials of insurance
7 T. R. 159.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0018&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)