IN INSURANCE CASES, RENDERED IN THE UNITED STATES SUPREME AND CIRCUIT COURTS, AND IN THE STATE SUPREME COURTS. ABANDONMENT. 81. MARINE.-Total Loss.-No abandonment is necessary when there is an actual total loss. Roux vs. Salvador, 3 Bing., N. C., 288. Where a vessel, after encountering a sea peril, is justifiably sold, the insured may claim a total loss, accounting to the insurer for the proceeds of the sale as salvage received for his benefit. Idle vs. Royal Ex. Ins. Co., 8 Taunt., 855; Cambridge vs. Atherton, 2 R. & Mood., 60; Ib., 2 B. & C., 691; Roux vs. Salvador, supra; Dyson vs. Rowcroft, 3 Bos. & Pul., 474; Gordon vs. Mass. F. and M. Ins. Co., 2 Pick., 271; American Ins. Co. vs. Center, 4 Wend., 53; 2 Pars. on Ins., 86; Arnould on Ins., 850: Phillips on Ins., sec. 1497. 22757 The vessel was torn from the dock by a gale and driven upon the rocks on a dangerous coast in a shattered condition, where there was strong probability that she would be compelled to remain during the winter and be ultimately destroyed. After a competent survey she was sold by the master. The purchasers succeeded in getting her off, repaired her, and sold her for less than the cost of repairs. Held, that the facts constituted an urgent necessity which justified the sale, and an abandonment was unnecessary. The Amelia, 6 Wall., 30; Butler vs. Murray, 30 N. Y., 88; Robertson vs. Clarke, 1 Bing., 445; Robertson vs. Carother, 2 Stark., 57; 2 Arnould on Ins., sec. 1091; 2 Parsons on Ins., 86. McCall vs. Sun Mutual Ins. Co. Rep'd Jour'l, p. 56. N. Y. C. A. CONSTRUCTION. § 2. FIRE.-Warehouse Policy.—Parol Evidence.-Double Insurance. The policy was taken out by warehouse keepers "on merchandise, their own, or held by them in trust, or in which they have an interest or liability, contained in" a designated warehouse. Held, that there was latent ambiguity in this description, and the intention of the parties must be gathered from the policy alone. Loraine vs. Tomlinson, Douglas, 564; Astor vs. Union Ins. Co., 7 Cowen, 202; Murray vs. Hatch, 6 Mass., 465; Levy vs. Merrill, 4 Greenl., 480; Balt. Fire Ins. Co. vs. Loney, 20 Md., 36; Arnould on Ins., 1316-17 and notes; Greenl. on Ev., vol. 2, 377; Finney vs. Bedford Ins. Co., 8 Metcalf, 348, distinguished. Held, that the policy covered the merchandise itself, and not merely the interest or claim of the warehouse-keepers. Warfingers, warehousemen, and commission merchants, having goods in their possession, may insure them in their own names, and in case of loss may recover the full amount of insurance for the satisfaction of their own claims first and hold the residue for the owners. Waters vs. the Monarch Ins. Co., 5 Ellis and Blackburn, 870; London and Northwestern R. R. Co., vs. Glyn, 1 Ellis and Ellis, 2 B., 652; De Forrest vs. Fulton Ins. Co., 1 Hall, 136; Siter vs. Moritz, 13 Penn. State, 219. Goods described in a policy as "merchandise held in trust by warehousemen, are goods held not in the technical sense as trustees, but entrusted to them for keeping. The phrase "held in trust," must be understood in its mercantile sense. Waters vs. Monarch Ins. Co., sup.; London and Northwestern R. R, Co., sup. A provision in the warehouse charter requiring that the receipts should contain a notice that the property was held by the corporation as bailees only, and was not insured by the corporation, does not affect the right of the corporation to insure, nor the construction of the policy. Depositors of the merchandise who received advances thereon from the warehousemen, took out other policies covering the same goods. Held, that the several policies constituted double insurance, and must contribute pro rata. Home Ins. Co. vs. Baltimore Warehouse Co. U. S. S. C. DEVIATION. § 3. MARINE.-Use of Intermediate Port.-'The policy was "at and from Miramichi to a port in Cape Breton, and at and from thence to New York, with privilege of carrying coal exceeding her tonnage." The vessel had already cleared for Big Glace Bay, a port in Cape Breton, under a charter which provided that if the captain did not consider it safe to remain and load there he was at liberty to proceed elsewhere, and the charter was to be considered canceled. The vessel proceeded to Sydney, a safe port in Cape Breton, and remained several days. The captain going from there overland to Big Glace Bay, and deeming it unsafe for loading the vessel, proceeded to Cow Bay, a safer port in Cape Breton, and commenced to load. Sydney was an intermeusage of coaling vessels diate port, and it was shown to be the to Cape Breton to stop there. Held, that contracts of insurance are construed in the light of established usage, which, unless excluded by express words, is deemed to be a part of the contract. Arnould on Ins., 333; 2 Parsons on Ins., 8, and cases cited; 1 Phillips on Ins., 997. |