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/ssactsengr0253 and id is 1 raw text is: IRVING V. MANN ING
proceed in disposing of the business now pending in the special paper oii the
day of the same month and the following days, and, on the day
of the same month, will proceed in disposing of the business now pending in the paper
of new trials;' or any other business, as such courts in their discretion shall see fit.
And the 3rd section enacts that all judgments to be pronounced, and all rules and
orders to be made by virtue of this act, shall have the same effect to all intents and
purposes as if they had been pronounced or made in term time. Here, a motion is
made in Easter term, for a rule to shew cause. Counsel appear to shew cause in the
first instance. No rule is granted; and, during the whole of that and the following
term, the matter remains in abeyance. Can it be said that a rule applied for, [390]
and not granted, is business pending and undecided within the 2nd section of the
statute ? If not, this notice is clearly insufficient to justify the court in entertaining
the matter now. And this certainly is not a case in which the court would feel inclined
to extend its jurisdiction.
COLTMAN, J. We think the notice certainly is not sufficient to entitle us to entertain
the motion now. But the difficulty may yet be obviated, by publishing a further
notice that will enable us to do so.
The following amended notice was accordingly inserted in the London Gazette of
the 30th of June:
This court will, on Saturday, the 8th day of July next, and on Monday, the 10th
day of the same month, hold sittings, and will proceed in disposing of the motions and
applications which have been made and partly heard in the same court, and in giving
judgment in the cases now standing for judgment.
On the 8th of July, it was intimated to the court that negotiations were pending
with a view to an arrangement between the parties, and that it was proposed that the
motion should, with the assent of the court, stand over until the next term,-the parties
to be in the same position as if the argument had taken place on that day.
(391] IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
JOHN IRVING, Chairman of the Alliance Marine Insurance Company v. MANNING
AND ANOTHER. 1848.
[S. C. 1 H. L. C. 286; 9 E. R. 766 (with note to which add, The Main, [1894] P. 328;
Sailing Ship Blairtnore Company v. Macredie, [1898] A. C. 599; S.S. Balmoral
Company v. Marten, [1901] 2 K. B. 905; [1902] A. C. 521; Angel v. Merchants'
Insurance Company, [1903] 1 K. B. 816).]
Notwithstanding that a policy of insurance is a contract of indemnity, it is to be taken
with this qualification-that the parties may agree beforehand in estimating the
value of the subject insured, by way of liquidated damages.-A policy was effected
on a ship valued at 17,5001. Upon a special verdict, it was found, that, during the
voyage, the ship was so much damaged by perils of the sea, as to be incompetent to
proceed without repair; that the necessary expenditure, in order to make her sea-
worthy, would have amounted to 10,5001., and that the ship, when repaired, would
have been worth 90001. only, which was her marketable value, as well at the period
of effecting the policy, as also immediately before the damage; that, under the
circumstances, a prudent owner, uninsured, would not have repaired ; and that the
vessel was duly abandoned to the underwriters.-Hld,-affirming the judgment of
the court below, and in conformity with the doctrine laid down in Allen v. Sugrue and
Young v. Turing,-that the assured were entitled to recover, as for a total loss, the
value stated in the policy.
On the 22nd of December, 1813, the plaintiffs below, as representing the owners of
a vessel called the General Kyd, brought an action of assumpsit inl the court of
Common Pleas, against the defendant below, one of the directors and chairman of the
Alliance Marine-Insurance Company (under the provisions of an act of parliament,
maling the company liable to be sued in the name of their chairman), to recover the
sum of 30001., the amount of a policy of insurance subscribed, on behalf of the company,
upon the said ship, which ship was valued therein at 17,5001. on a voyage at and from
China to Madras, while there, and back to China, not east of Hong Kong, with leave
to call at the Straits. The declaration averred a total loss by perils of the sea.
1302
6 C. B. 390.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0253&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)