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/ssactsengr0947 and id is 1 raw text is: GORAM V. SWEETING, ETC.
wherefore they concluded for the avowant that [200] the rent did not cease by the
marriage until the actual payment of the 1001.
And of this opinion were Rainsford and Morton Justices, wherefore they gave
judgment for the avowant against the opinion of Twysden.
[200] 39. GORAM v. SWEETING, THE SAME v. FOWKE, and
THE SAME v. BATEMAN.
Mich. 22 Car. II. Regis, Rot. 367.
London, to wit.-Be it remembered that heretofore, to wit, in the term of the Holy
Trinity last past, before our lord the King at Westminster came Francis Goram by
Andrew Viduan his attorney, and brought here into the Court of our said lord the
King then there his certain bill against John Sweeting, in the custody of the marshal,
&c. of a plea of trespass on the case, and there are pledges of prosecution, to wit, John
Doe and Richard Roe, which said bill follows in these words, to wit: London, to wit,
Francis Goram complains of John Sweeting, being in the custody of the marshal of
the Marshalsea of our lord the King before the King himself, for that whereas the
said Francis, on the 21st day of April in the year of our Lord 1669, at London afore-
said, to wit, in the parish of St. Mary le Bow in the ward of Cheap, according to the
custom of merchants caused to be written and made a certain writing, commonly
called a policy of insurance,(1) in which said writing it was mentioned that the said
(1) Which is, when a merchant gives a consideration in money, by way of pre-
mium, to others, to assure his ship or goods, from one port or place, to some other
port or places, on such terms as they can agree upon ; and if the ship or goods, &c.
perish, or are lost, in the whole, or in part, every subscriber is to make a recompense
either to the extent of his subscription, or pro rata, in proportion thereto; whereby
(to use the language of the statute 43 Eliz. c. 12) on the loss or perishing of any
ship, there followeth not the undoing of any man, but the loss lighteth rather easily
upon many, than heavily upon few. A policy of insurance is considered as a
contract uberrimcefidei, and always receives a liberal construction, for the benefit of
trade, and of the assured. 1 Burr. 349, Pelly v. Royal Exchange Assurance. 1 Bos. &
Pull. 322, Wolff v. Horneastle. Skinn. 55, Kaines v. Knightly. And it is held, that
what is usually done by such a ship, with such a cargo, in such a voyage, is under-
stood to be referred to by every policy, and to make a part of it, as much as if it was
expressed therein; 1 Burr. 350; and that whoever subscribes or underwrites a policy,
is bound to know the nature and peculiar circumstances of that branch of trade to
which the policy relates, and that whether it is recently established or not. Doug.
510, Noble v. Kennoway, 3d edit. 3 Burr. 1712, Salvador v. Hoykins.(a) If there has
been a mistake in a policy, it may be altered by consent even after a loss has
happened ; as where a broker had instructions to insure goods on the ship A., where
B. was commander, and the policy by mistake of the person who effected it, was oil
the ship C. where D. was commander, it was held that the mistake might be set right
(a) See also 1 Camp. 503, Valiance v. Dewar. Ibid. 505 n. Ougier v. Jenyns. Ibid.
508 n. Kingston v. Knibbs. 3 Camp. 200, Moxon v. Atkins. 1 Taunt. 463, Grant v.
Paxton. Selwyn, N. P. 963. [See also Peake, 43, Chaurand v. Angerstein. But the
usage must be general, in order to bind the insurer: therefore a usage at Lloyd's
will not bind him, unless he be in the habit of effecting policies there. 3 B. & C. 793,
Cabay v. Lloyd. 5 D. & R. 641, S. C. 10 B. & C. 760, Bartlett v. Pentland. 1 B. &
Ad. 605, Scott v. Irving. 4 M. & W. 211, Stewart v. Aberdein. See 11 M. & W. 116,
Mackintosh v. Marshall. 8 M. & W. 160, Stewart v. Cauty. Again, though a usage
may be admissible to explain what is ambiguous in the policy, it is never admissible
to contradict what is plain. Therefore, in an action on a policy, in the usual form,
on ship, boat, &c. evidence of usage that the underwriters never pay for loss of boats
on the outside of the ship, slung upon the quarters, was held inadmissible. 2 Cr. & J.
244, Blackett v. Royal Exchange Assurance Company. 2 Tyrw. 275, S. C. See 3 Q. B.
120, Milward v. Hibbert. 2 G. & D. 142, S. C.]
2 WMS. SAUND. 200.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0947&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)