New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-04-11
la W INTELLIGENCE.
SUPREME COURT CIRcurr-APErL lo.-Bcfote Judge
PEABODY,

PrAsopY.
RYISsURANCEs oS The CARGO or THE GREAT REPCB-
IlC-IMPORTANT QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION.
The Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company at The Sis'e Ma
tusI IL sursnce Company Of pennsylyaniA
The plaintiffs having risks on the ship Gfea' Replo
lie her 20 snd freight 1885, applied defendant. for
rsuIsncs Their application was in wri'ins aid on me io0"
Repsursnce is wanted by III, Mercantile Mutual Ia'a
Con pay for Son csTso on board OF the sup 0iu
Repubc al and from New York 20 Liverpool ex 5oeo not
This policy i, to be subject to such k' y.u.iors aud
condition. a. az or be taken By the Mercantile Mutual Ia
sursnoe Company and Payments oil io'o DC se " 'ne Safe
"KewYoik, Dec. l. 1853"
T. tie defendants agreed 70 m'ie aud ssnifed
The VOID g. and .supg he pcmo,.Ddum thus na'e
sndP sseuts stac Mutu." i and beins the initi,.
OF the SCENTS Of defendants through whom the
msde and to this they acknowledge themselves
tppessd the trial that plaintiffs had ins1red less th.n
the othe s'p but tat they bad risks a,o en-
they hid Oh the cargo united to $500 sad more
By he Court PEABODY Justice The question in tbs case
IT, what did the defendants insure ,
vhcb ambiguous proved or ,dne By he ps.'';
.Sntted or proved to mean .uI.tan,y q
".t. plaintiff might have $4,000, not TO .x:eed
"sI5ttt" The sppdcatiou ws', therefore, IN substance r
over and sboye Ii. sum of oco the AMOUNT .ueh rein
suraIce exceed in any event he sum Of CO., De
they had injured should o sbo.s the sum Of
until such sxets should amour. 70 % pi'
The inurnce by deendsns is also conceded vas limited
10 III
About these natter. there no controversy
Plaintiffs however claim that In ascsr,ainas what tuoun.
Of risks they had snd Low much snt whether anything over
soC determse whether tao insurance ,, digGa
, vessel freight and cargo, ere to D. taken into the &C.
count; AID that The Of dseaes ., "An
Where's defendants insist :hs, their en-sssmen: wa ory
cSso aloHeNthst soae being The subject Of the .ppcsn
ard pobDg Sns suggested ethe. in terms By mpJa
D ae 1 h OF as i .od s.
n.u,I &c the plaintiff. might hsys made on the ,p or !h
their r,k. with view to determining what amount Of nsur
A. 6een3sDs contract undertaking 10 make the n
applied for the extent and ehee OF hA. contract must
depend chiefly the terms and meaning oil the application
Which thus becomes all important in the inqnr, what the con-
The par, of tia. paper which .outros in r.sp-s to this
planned asst by evidence ard admissions on ths ta reads
Rer suisnce is wanted by the M~c..tls Life Insurance
COMPANY, or caIso on eos,d OF th' snip Graz Re
si5%e" %N''n P'n'D' may A''' '''' D0'
When the risks Insured BY plaintiff. sAOaId excel eoo
defendants sted TO reLsure that exccss certain eI
tent that's tn 1t should amount to SEQ h-yo.d which
they asked TO insure or become liable ho"-ve
much the risks Of the plaintiff above The +ee mig sIeee
To ascertain whether the r.k ned by the PLAINTIFF. eI
c.ded the point which defendants sts 70 commence
ss . tR n. We. lin o TX. Ire BE- lsn
Into in ushps the cscullon and wheasr are to
~ bo. o be c,r,o or to rcSGe hn ed
only what they had assumed on re cargo As aoye re
which given Substantially above. Wth the explanations
. it TO n BY ps9s e. .s
tsie over the saGO and under ss5 sOO TIE application
does Tot state expressly on what property the e5oo OF rt.
he, and ct 10 ascertain The meaning oil "
N ibis respect BY constr uetior And inst what does sPps"
in the paper
' plainly ard cOnfe.ejiy application for on
Lobe Cargo then the Of the spp aon
II 10 the only tbrs Of which reinsurance ssk /: u men
toned IN the early Of the paper In the sentence
which he om which toe insurance 70 10 take effect and
the amount 10 which 10 to extend stated and there not
spp1enuy change from that subject 20 other u
eds from the tor reinsurance 70 stare the point
whNh ., sred that the reinsurance should commence
We not 10 infer chsnse from subject TO another or
otbers without necessity least 1hory for 81
inference IL much natural hs, the latter part OF TIE
sentence should refer 10 the subject tbs part eare
and Immediately contiguous 10 IL does csuse 70 sup
that the subject Of the rks Of the plaintiffs spoken o.
other than the subject Of which they ask the nor
DO see room OF opportunity 70 supply other subject -
being the one referred TO- IN spestps Of the risks Of plaintiffs
than that which referred 10 In the earlier bot immediately
contiguous pEt OF the sentence Defendants 70 REIN
plaintiffs cargo Of he Gres; Republic aud
eL rensriaDcs the point when the sks Of the pAatits
bean 70 exceed CSC co.. Can these risks Of the plaintiff
rsts thing than that Of which rensursoce sked
chilly h<G otaer subject Of sppars
bssG nc des cocs!derauop b~twss q the psrt.sf
II there be ambiguity apparent ths pspsx,
psoi eviercr BE- ednlsd eIpsn It. II the subject
= e@ aeS!sosss fcu wtst eEP<rs,x n nsPsp 70