Morning journal and courier., 1881-03-14
2 M MORNING. MARCH l4. 1881
EDITED AND PUBLISHED ]
Monday Morning, March IA, 1881.
A MARINE INSURANCE CASE.


 A noteworthy decision in case involving gently been given by the English Court ot Appeal The particular point decided was that the explosion of the boiler of 6 steamer is peril insured against by marine l policy in the usual form. steamer insured by fire policy became wreck by reason o1 1 the explosion of her boiler in ordinary wealth | CT, under ordinary pressure of steam. The Immediate cause of the explosion was that the boiler had become, from external and in 1 ternal corrosion by bilge-water and 'tscale, T too thin to resist the steam. The corrosion might have been discovered and in some measure prevented by proper care. The un- derwriters disputed their liability upon the ground that such an explosion was not a peril insured against within the true meaning of thepolicy, and that (assuming it to be sol this particular explosion happened because the boiler was worn out, and that they were not liable for any loss due to that cause But it was held by the Court that though unsea- worthiness was the immediate cause of the loss, the explosion was proximate cause and a peril insured against, and the insurance company were consequently liable.
 The question involved in this case had al- ready been before the Supreme Courts of Ohio and Missouri, and the English tribunal expressly referred to the American decisions in support of it's own ruling, and in the ab- sence, too, of any precedents of their own bearing directly upon the question. The case being one of extraordinary importance and genuine novelty, was very elaborately argued by eminent counsel, including MT. Judah P. Benjamin, formerly high officer of the southern Confectionery. and now one of the leaders of the English bar, and full and exhaustive opinions were delivered by all of the judges. The Ford Chancellor based the conclusions of his own learned judgment exclusively upon the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio to which we have referred, and he esubstantially yaadopted the req soning of that Court in his employment of the following language: ''I think it is at least as proper to hold that in the case of & steamship the words of an ordinary policy cover damage occasioned by the explosion of the boiler in which the motive power neces- sary to her navigation is generated What winds are to sailing vessel steam is to a steamer, and it is as reasonable that marine insurers should bear the risks incident to a navigation by that kind of power, whether from excess of pressure in the boiler, or from defects of safety-valves, or from neglect or mismanagement, mak- ing that dangerous which oth- erwise would not be so, as that they shall bear losses occasioned by excessive pressure of winds and defects or mismanagement of a ships sails or tackle.''
 This case is one of a number which show that there is growing disposition in Eng land to recognize authority the decisions of the higher American courts This is grat- flying, for, as the Philadelphia North Aneai- ca1a observes: 'It is an unconscious tribute to the integrity and intelligence of the American Bench. and is to be valued at high estimate, in view of the deeply-rooted indisposition of Englishmen generally, and of English law yers especially, even when confronted by the illustrious example of MT. Benjamin-a great jurist, and the author of one of the most scholarly contributions to legal literature ex- tant-to concede that there can anything good originate beyond the limits of their nar- row Nazareth"