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/ssactsengr0966 and id is 1 raw text is: IRVING V. MANNING [1847]
objects; and that even if the objects were not fully ascertained, if the purposes of the
bequest were charitable, the Court could supply the omission. This is undoubtedly
true; and I agree with the Vice Chancellor that the probability is that the legacy was
given for some purpose that would be considered to be a charitable purpose. But
it cannot, at the same time, be denied that a municipal corporation may take
property in trust for the benefit of individuals, and for purposes altogether private,
and it is impossible to say, with that degree of legal certainty which would justify
your Lordships in giving effect to this bequest, that such was not the case in the
present instance.
For these reasons, which in substance are the same, though less elaborately stated
than those upon which the Vice Chancellor rested his decision, I have come to the
[286] conclusion that the legacy of £60,000 must fail. The same reasoning and
the same objections will apply to the legacy of £140,000. I submit to your Lord-
ships, therefore, that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed.
I beg leave to state, that the Lord Chancellor, who is unable to give his attendance
here to-day, entirely concurs in this opinion. He was present during the whole
of the argument.
Lord Brougham.-This case, though of very large amount, £140,000 and
£60,000, making £200,000 altogether, appears to me to rest upon exceedingly plain
and simple grounds. I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend in the view
which he has taken of the bequest, both as regards the first argument on the con-
struction of the bequest, and the second argument with respect to its possible
application. I am clearly of opinion that the right construction has been put upon
it by the Court below, that it fails altogether, and that the property in question
goes according to the destination pointed out by the decree; and, therefore I agree
with my noble and learned friend's proposition to your Lordships, that this judg-
ment should be affirmed.
Under the peculiar circumstances of the case (I do not enter into details), I
submit to your Lordships that it is not a case in which costs should be given.
Lord Campbell.-In the course of my experience, I never read a judgment more
cautiously expressed, and better reasoned than that of his Honour the Vice Chan-
cellor Wigram in this case. I have only to state to your Lordships, that after
having carefully considered the arguments on both sides, I entirely concur in the
judgment which has been proposed.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the decree appealed from was affirmed,
without costs.
[287] JOHN IRVING,-Plaintiff in Error; CHARLES JOHN MANNING and
JOHN L. ANDERSON,-Defendants in Error [June 29; July 1, 8, 23, 1847].
[Mews' Dig. xii. 708; xiii. 1139, 1224. S.C. 1 C.B. 168; 2 C.B. 784; 6 C.B. 391.
Followed in Barker v. Janson, 1868, L.R. 3 C.P. 307; and cf. Rankin v. Potter,
1873, L.R. 6 H.L. 144; Burnand v. Rodocanachi, 1880, 5 C.P.D. 426; Aitchison
v. Lohre, 1879, 4 A.C. 761.]
Policy of Insurance-Total loss.
A vessel is totally lost, within the meaning of a policy, when it becomes, as a
ship, of no use or value to the owner, and is as much lost as if it had gone to the
bottom of the sea, or had been broken to pieces, and the whole or great part
of the fragments had reached the shore as wreck.
A loss is also to be considered as total where a prudent owner, if uninsured,
would not have repaired.
In a valued policy the agreed total value is conclusive.
A policy of insurance is not a perfect contract of indemnity. It must be taken
with this qualification, that the parties may agree before hand in estimating
the value of the subject assured by way of liquidated damages.
A ship was insured in a policy, in which the value was stated at £17,500. The
766
I H.L.C., 286](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0966&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)