The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-05-31
Supreme Court Report.

Paradise, Lat0rason y Co., VS.. The !Su,
Mutual Insurance. Company, ct al. y. In con.
strung contract of insurance we are cons'ru.
ing contract a5rminive Jfdei. In giving Para
use Lawfason q Go. policy freight, the
underwater had Just reason to suppose in the
absence Of explanation, that he was dealing with
the owners OF the vessel or at least with parties
closely associated in interest with the owner and
So the assured, by the terms of the policy was,
IN the contemplation of the underwater agreeing
the master.
We do not think that this view of the case con-
hicts with the general doctrine that the special
nature OF the interest need not be disclosed where
the subject matter of the insurance is properly
described, or, at all events, that it is more than
reasonable and fair limitation of that doctrine. The
reason, or certainly of the reasons of that doc
trlne, 49, that IN general, the nature of the title or
interest OF the assured, whether legal equitable
absolute or partial is without influence on the
general risks of the policy, the pers of the sea,
seizure, capture, etc.
Moreover, the payment of the loss to the plain
tffs, enures as certainly to the benefit of Knapp as
payment to himself For they, under their con-
tract, are bound Immediately to apply the proceeds
oi the policy to the satisfaction of their advances
so that, In substance, if the loss was by barratry
hnapp recovers for loss for which he had agreed
to ask no indemnify
We, therefore, do not concur with the learned
Judge in his charge, that if the jury were of
opinion that Paradise, Lawrason & CO. had, in
IN their own right an insurabe interest, and
insured that interest their own account thew
can recover and that the clause concerning the
barratry OF the MASTER excepts only the case where
the assured Is owner of the subject insured We
think the charge should have been that if the iury
believed the policy was effected, as alleged by
petitions, to cover the interests of Paradise Law.
rason & Co., and of Knapp, the exception con-
cerning barratry applied alike to both and that if
the loss was by barratry of the Captain neither
could recover
The defendants asked the Court to charge the
!uIy that ireight upon owners goods, although
lnsurable as and under the denomination Of
freight yet the amount of such freight is to be
measured by the additional value given to such
scoas ny the transportation OF them from the port
OF departure to the port Of destination, to be calcu
iatea ,T on the value at the port Of departure"
Inc court refused SO to charge; but told the
jury that the value or interest depends on the rate
Of irelght at the port Of departure and the mer-
chant, IN apporhonng it, is bound in fairness to
nix II al that rate which was then the fair and mar
ket rate OF freight at the time of loading the car
go; for.that he charged the jury, was the measure
Oh the interest which the shp-owner had under the
policy or freight. ~
Ihe term freight, said Lord Tenterden. as used
IN policies of insurance, means the benefit derived
70 the sniP-owner from the employment of the
eh.p' II is the same thing, he observed, to the
ship-owner, whether he receives that benefit Of
the use OF his ship by money payment from one
person who charters the whole ship or from vari-
Gus persons who put specific quantities of goods
on ooafo' or from persons who pay him the value
pi ms own goods at the port of delivery increased
by their carriage in his own ship. The assured
may farly consider that additional value as freight
and so term it in the policy. Flynt u.s. Fleming,
Barn, and Adophus As. Mr.. Arnould in his
very valuable treatise, after citing this opinion of
Lord Tenterden, adds:
Accordingly, it is now established law in this
country, that the assured, under a general.insur-
ance on freight, may recover the profits he expects
to make, by carrying his own goods in his own
ship, on the voyage insured" Arnould on Insur.
ance, p. 22l. And Mr.. Phillips uses the following
language: Then the owner of the shp is also the
owner OF the cargo, policy on freight will cover
the interest arising on the transportation of the
cargo In such case, the profits of the VOYAGE,
says the Supreme Court OF Massachusetts, NAV be
insured under the denomination of freight" |
Phillips, p. 1877.
Upon this expression, "proits,' used by the
commentators, and found in some of the decisions.
the learned counsel for the defendants base the ar
gument, that the claim of the assured in this case
Tor loss OF freight, so far as his own goods are
concerned, c. m,, must be controlled by the inquiry
What would have been the enhanced value of
knapp's goods at San Francisco"
we THINK the argument g ives an undue weight
TO an incidental expression, and does not comport
with the true theory upon which the doctrine
Nabove stated in the language Of Lord Tenterden,)
D.
piled in practice. Freight is the price of u,e car
rage OF the cargo and is the ship-owner's COM
pensaton Tor the employment Of tne ship-his
return for the labor and capital which he emplo,.
in the purposes oil commerce. Ii he carries
cargo belonging to another person. he receives his
compensation in the price paid by that person for
the carriage. If he carries his own cargo, he may
be fairly considered as charging the price Of the
carriage of the goods, and crediting the ship in ac-
count, expecting the goods to reimburse their outlay
thoir ap at tbp mi fOEd
The argument on the part Of the defendants con-
POUNDS the freight Of the ship-owners goods, that
is, the price expense of their carriage, with the
profits on those goods at the port of destination.
But those profits depend upon many circumstances
Independent OF the home value Of the goods and
the cost of transportation. They depend, was
properly argued for the plaintiff on the favorable
ness unfavorableness of the foreign market, when
the goods reach there; which is not controlled
merely by the home value and the cost of transpor-
tation but by the proportion of demand and supply
in that market the prosperity or embarrassment o
commercial affairs; in short, variety OF circum-
Stances independent of the home value and freight
Both these have their value yet the profits may b
much, o, nothing.
In practice the mode of calculating the loss sug
gested by the defendants, has not been followed
and so far as researches have gone, it has neve
been contended for.
In the case of Flint Us. Fleming, the policy wa
on freight on the ship Hope, at and from Madra
to London. On the arrival of the ship at Madras
the crew were employed some days in dischargin
the outward cargo; and then the vessel was los
in the Madras Roads by the perils Of the sea. N
part of the cargo was then shipped; but the Cap
tain had purchased at Madras, by order and on al
count Of the plaintiff. his owner, twenty-five tor
of redwood. A commercial house had contracte
to ship one hundred and twenty-five tons Of sal
petre. Another person engaged to ship nine
tons of light goods; but as to those goods, the
was no contract in writing. There verdi
for the plaintiff For what The amount of t
freight of all the goods motion being made
new trial. Lord Tenterden, after the Observable
respecting freight OF owners goods, which v
have already cited, then notices the deficiency
proof as to the light goods, and says the und
writers must have new trial upon the groun
But, he remarks, she must at all events have
verdict against him for the amount OF the freig
on the redwood and saltpetre ltwould. thereto
be advisable for the defendant to pay 10 the pla
tiff the costs of this action, and the freight OF
redwood and the salpetre, and that he should
dertake to pay the freight Of the light goods, IT,
reference to an arbitration, it shall be found
there was contract to ship those goods.
cordingly, by the reporters statement at the
Of the case, it appears that the underwriters agI
to pay the costs Of the action, and the tre'gh
the redwood and saltpetre, and refer the other Z
ters to arbitration.
By examining the opinions Of Bayley, j.,
Parker, j., in that case, it will be seen that &
in substance, understood by freight OF the
owners goods, the expense OF their carriage.
So, in Devaux vs JAnson, the idea of esti
ting the loss with reference to the profits W
would have been realized, is no where limited
the evidence the argument of the case, altht
we observe there was evidence to show