Alexandria daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1803-1808, 1807-01-27

bare taking OF the vessei, tneIcio lou -.
by 10 means constitute a loss and II un-
der suspicious circumstances, she sa .l.ll
be carried into port to aRord an opportuhsy
for a complete invesliga CATION, perhaps ssen
that ought not Of isssif 70 be CONSIDERS : s
as a total loss. Oa,hiss however. ! give
90 opislon, But the captor, hasinS car.
ried the vessel into port, and complstsd
the examination OF the cargo aud papfrss
instead OF dischargisg her, processes %
li5eI her as plise. think the loss is coai.
lplete. The property is 20 longer subject
10 the command OF the owner, and ~ y,
unreasonable that hs should wait the event
of judicial proceedings, which may ecoati-
nue. for years. The case of an ernbafgois
less strong-because there the conhsca'ion
of the properly is not Intended, aaa 2
temporary interruption Of the voyage Is
all that in general IS to be apPrshendsd.---
Yet the assured is not obliged to wait the
result, bus may abandon Immediately on
receipt of iate!!,gencs of The embargo
No, many Judicial decisions have bssn
produced on the poia: in question. Whers
principles are strong il is snfic'ens that
there have been no decisions 70 The ea1sra-
.ry. II appears, however, shatla The state
Of New York the precise point has been
dessrmined Ia the case of Mamiard vs..
s Church, decided 10 the supreme court ct
New York, July term, 1899, the assured
recovered for total loss where there was
eap,sr, earrying nto port, asd hbell rs
by British capsor, although otter me a.
6andonment the property was restored IL
is necessary that some general 'uls should
be established; some line dawn, BY which
the assured may know at VIVA. tine he has
right 10 abandon. In most CASES tae
voyags ia extremity iajared BY praceed
iogs in ,he Court af admiralty, and The e.,
vent IS doubtful. For i,eaSnot be denied
that of late such arrange occurrences have
taken place in war and peli,ics as ha' very
much affected the principles and practice
Of foreign eaurts of admiralty. Wha,ever
may be said IF the law of na,sre and IA
sons and the imn'utsbis priuciplss Ct JUS
tice, we see very pliinly that ths courts
obey the will ct lhs sovereign power Ct
their country aud his will aactua,es with
the eircumstaaces Of the times. am
therefore of opinion, that bo.h by the
words and spirit of a policy of insurance,
he assured may sbaadon WHEN he re-
ceives intell gsnce of,lhefl sbeilirg Of his
vessel.
2 This briggs me to the consideration
of the secead point. Has any cirsua,.
stance oscufred which lmiss the pla,niE
70 recovery fer only a parti.l lnss!''
|; is consendsd that such an e:en, has
occurred: that the vrsse!-wa acquitted BIZ
decree Of The court Of admiralty that at.
ter aeqais!al she proceeded ca her voyage,
and thar osc of .ias owners WAS on inc
spot add knew Of tie aeqon,al. | dc not
,hiak thsre is much weight is tiae circam
stance of oacct The owners being On The
spot bseause he sene, 81 agent Of all the
owners wa:in Ph,!aaelph;a. THIS neral
agent ehcated the inaufaaec, aEd canduc,
ed all the business 1t the underwriters,
nd the owner wto was ia New Provi
deuce, gave him intelligence Vi What oc
Cured tom line TO ,iar, and cyno means
| lasended, frors any thing 5i,a, aPpsars, TO
restrain hisn freaa masiag an ssan onmeat.
Il is true hat the vessel proceeded on her
voyage after she wa. resiored but i: is
not stated. nor can the court presume,
that any Of the owners aesed IN nann.r
Inconsistent with the abandonment made
by their agent. Il was proper e, all e
vents, TO pursue veyage Tor the benefit
Of whoever mighs be iaselessed lc il ---- -
This is the usual pracuce, and prac.ies
authorised by the policy, ano very mach
for the advantage Of the underwriters.
The only difficulty in the ea.e before
the cour, arises from this circumstance
that before the action was brought the