Star.
London, England, 1816-10-31 00:00:00

. ..,—/......
esith:r tilt taib's sewn.. 66/1011211`66a
,CULLIII 0 IIUTLIMe
This was an action upon a policy of indulge* en
goods by the ship • Industry, at and from London to
the Canary Islands, fur loss averred to br by perils
dad misfortunes of the seas.
At the trial before Lord Etta% 'ounces, in the
fittings at Guildhall. after last litlary Tenn; the
plaintiff was *unsuited, upon the ground that the ship
was lost, Rot by peril oldie sea; but a peril ors the
sea. The case appeared to be this t—The !admitt
set sail from London on her voyage, and in the eight
of the 7th of July. 1815, before she arrived at het
destination, the master and crew of another British
ship, tailed the Midas, believing the Industry to be
an enemy's ship, and that the persons on board were
in a ?mettle Manner about to attack and ho.rd the
Midas, for the purpose of defending thetuselveS
against such apprehensive attack, but without any
faelt'oin the part of the crew of the Industry, fired
into her, whereby the latter vessel immediately sunk.
Lord ELLeciottouou, at the trial, held, under these
chtumstancet, that this was a loss by poll cit, hot
not gibe sea. and therefore the plaititiff was non-
Kited. In Easter Tetm a Rule Mu. was obtained,
for setting aside the noosuit, and having a new trial.
'but the plaintiff afterwards abandoned his Rule, and
obtained leave to amend his declaration, by meatisig
a second count, containing a statement of the cit.-
cumstances under which the vessel was lost. as above
stated. The parties afterwards agreed to turn the
question into a special ease for arguniects and as it
was admitted that the vessel did not come within any
of the enumerated risks in the policy, the qUestion
turned upon, whether it was a loss coming within the
general words u other perils, losses, and misfottonei,
that have or shall come to the hurt. detriment, or da-
mage of the said goods and ship, Ste."
The Cuur:, alter hearing Mr. PARKS, for the plain-
tiff, and Mr..BAILNEWELL, for c'efendant. took time to
consider their judgment, intimating th A t its this was
the first case which had ever been brought under ;dis-
cussion as to the effect of the general words above
mentioned, it was necessary to consider the subject
with deliberate attenti.m.
HARYIY AND OTHERS V. CRICICIerT AND 01111 MS.
This was an action tor money hid and received to
the use of the plaintifk as assignees of Matthew Bar-
nard Harvey and John White Harvey. bankrupts.
At the trial before Lord ELLEwoortooon, in the
London Sittings after last Michaelmas Term, a vet.
dict was found for the plaintiffs, with ‘931 15s. 6d.
damages, subject to the opinion of the Court upon a
I special case, which stated—That in the year 181.4
the Bankrupts carried on business as bankers at
Rnchfotd and Billericay. in Esau. under the firm of
Matthew Barnard Harvey, Son, and Co. On the I;th
of May, 2814, J. W. Harvey committed en act of
bankruptcy, and was duly declared a, bankrupt oft
the 2Sd of May, under a separate commission, which
was issued against him. In the year 1814 the detest.
dints carried' n business as Bankers at Chelmsford)
and employed the house ref Esdatle and Co. as thew
London Agents. At the time of J. W. Harvey's
.bantistptey, the defendants held notes of M. B H. sr.
vey, Son, and Co.. payable to bearer, and which kid
come into their hands in the ustal course of their ba•
sinew; as Country Bankers to a large amount. These
notes were afterwards presented by one of the defers.
dints to Ranschuttom and Co. the London Agents
of Kitvey. Son, and Co. at whose house they wet.:
payable, but itarnrsbottom and Co. refused to pay
theta, although afterwards on a part of them to the
amount of ie:3o or any being presented, they .paid
such part out of the Funds or M. B. Harvey and J.
W. Harvey, in their hands at that time. With the
exception of this parcel of notes, the house of Rams-
bottom and Co.. continued to pay all the notes of M.
B. Harvey ad Co. ptesented to them fee payment to
the amount of many thousand pounds, until the 234
day of June following, up to which day M. 6.. Hat.
vey continued to carry on the business of the Banks
in ibe country. Before the 2241 of May the defers•
dents had notice that a considerable quantity of the
bankrupt's notes had been refused payment. aod on
that day they were informed of the Abseitading of J.
W. Harvey., but that M. B. Harvey was perfectly
solvent ; and on that same day an. application wee
made on behalt of M. B. Harvey to the defenders*
to accept in payment of the notes which had been pre.
sensed to Ranabottom and Co. a bill proposed to.*
drawn by a Mr. Wade, a debtor to the bankrepts.to
a large amount, upon Dyson and Dixon. This sec
raugement was *acceded to by the defendintlVand
they accordingly received a bill dated 24th At4il;l6l.
411000, drawn by Wade in favoir of N. Bs .1-lititey,
and iodated to them by the latter, who knew at that
time of his soaU having absconded. The bill so
delivered was paid when due by the acceptor to the
defendants. On the 23d June, AL B. Harvey cons-
mined an act of bankruptcy, and on the 18th July a
joint commission issued against 'both the bankrupts,
underwhieh fherwere duly 'declared bankfttptiie,tuid
the plaintiffs became *Signets -cadet the ma* 'Oft
thelth of September,' 1614, the Cepantte astir Ifs
against J.W. Harvey was superseded. The
tion for the opinion of the Court, was, whether the
Plaintiffs were. entitled tit recover the sum of
' -42951151 ed.. Wog composed' of the balanCe of the
proteeds of the bill in the bands of the delentlifit4,
and the snot of 410) or any part thereof. The goes.
doh of law then arising for the decision dale Court
was, whether, after the bankruptcy of J. W. Harvit,
his father, M. B, Harvey, had the power of dPapoein*
of the pi property in discharge Of the part.
nership debt doe to the defendants I or; in other
words, whether, atter the bankruptcy of an insolvent
' paftner, the jet itrperinssfi is taken from the 'solvent
partner which he bad before the bankruptcy f
Mr. F. Pouotor. on *all of the 'plaintiffs; coo.
tended, that as the act of bankruptcy of J. W. Hof-
' vey in taw dissolved the partnership of the bankrupts,
the previous power existing in 11. B. Herat' of dis.
posing of the partnership ptoperty ceased from the
moment of the bankruptcy,, and consequently the
.paytnent of the paitnerihip finds by hint, to the de.
fandauts, *as a fraud upon the. assignees, being with-
out *it Colllllllt.
Mr. Tfattot., for the defendants, contended, that
the filetiOft sass not at all maintainable by the plain-
Os ' inunsugh satin must bigoosidered tenant* its
, .
common with the tolvent partner. .
The Cotfrt held that the edit* was not maintain-
able, and ptoneonced their judgment for deleichstib