Case Name: David Higgins versus Edward S. Livermore
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1817-03
Citations: 13 Tyng 106
Docket Number: 
Parties: * David Higgins versus Edward S. Livermore
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 94–95

Head Matter:
* David Higgins versus Edward S. Livermore
Insurance was made “ on the cargo of the Stoedish brig Sophia,” and it was holden that the vessel was thus warranted to be Swedish, or at least documented in that character.
Case upon a policy of insurance. The article insured was described as “ the plaintiff’s commissions on the cargo of the Swedish brig Sophia.”
It was proved, at the trial before Jackson, J., at the last November term in this county, that the vessel was captured by the British on the voyage insured, and with the cargo condemned, on the ground that she was not a Swedish vessel; and the only question was, whether she was warranted by the policy to be Swedish. The judge was of opinion that, by the words above quoted, she was so warranted; and no evidence was offered to prove that she was Swedish, or that she was documented as such. But the plaintiff contending that this was not the legal construction of the policy, and offering to prove by paroi evidence that it was not so understood and intended by the parties, the judge admitted the evidence, in order to present the whole question at once for the consideration of the Court. Upon the evidence thus admitted, the jury returned their verdict, that the plaintiff did not warrant that the vessel was Stoedish, and accordingly found for the plaintiff as for a total loss.
The defendant moved for a new trial, alleging that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, on the point submitted to the jury. If the Court should be of opinion that the paroi evidence ought to have been admitted, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover in the action, the verdict was to stand. Otherwise it was to be set aside, and a new trial ordered; as the plaintiff alleged that he should, upon another trial, be able to prove that the vessel was Swedish, or that she was regularly documented as such.

Opinion:
* By the Court.
The words cited from the policy contain a warranty that the vessel was Swedish property, or at least that she was furnished with regular documents in that character. The evidence given to the jury, to explain the intentions of the parties to the contract, ought not to have been admitted.
The condemnation having been expressly on the ground that the vessel was American, it is doubtful if the plaintiff is at liberty to contest that fact. But let the verdict be set aside, and the plaintiff may take a new trial, if he shall be so advised. ,
Parker for the plaintiff.
Welsh for the defendant.
See 8 Johns. Rep. 307, Barker vs. Phœnix Ins. Co., and the cases there cited.
[Atherton vs. Brown, post, 152. — Lewis vs. Thacker, 15 Mass. Rep. 431. — Hastings vs. Lovering, 2 Pick. 2Í4.— Hogins vs. Plympton, 11 Pick. 100. — Windsor vs. Lombard, 18 Pick. 57. — Ed.]