Case Name: Shirtliff and Austin v. Whitfield and Brown
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1806-05
Citations: 2 Brev. 71
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shirtliff and Austin v. Whitfield and Brown.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, CHARLESTON,
MAY, 1806.
Shirtliff and Austin v. Whitfield and Brown.
An agent is bound to insure goods of his principal, if so directed, after he has undertaken to act as agent. But if he is a special and not a general agent, and has no particular instructions to insure, he is not hound or authorized to do it.
Motion for a new trial. The principal question on the trial of this cause before Bait, J., in Charleston, was,'whether an agent, employed by a merchant to ship goods for him, is bound to have the goods insured without particular instructions to do so ? Evidence at the trial was given of a custom or usage among merchants by which such an obligation is imposed on the agent. The existence of the custom was left to the jury, who found in favor of it.
Pringle, in support of the motion,
cited Marsh. 209, 218.
Desaussure, and Cheves, on the other side.

Opinion:
Waties, J.,
delivered the unanimous opinion of the court, 10th May, 1806. In all mercantile transactions where an agent has received orders to insure goods directed to be shipped by him, he is bound to do it; or if he be a general agent, and has no particular instructions to insure, and ships goods as such, he is bound to in-stile, if in the course of such transactions it is usual to insure; But this rule does not hold in regard to a special agent. He is bound by his special instructions and no further, unless the mercan. hie law or custom has established additional duties. The defend. ants in the present case were special agento, and had no orders to effect insurance. They were not bound to do so, unless under an implied obligation resulting from the usage of trade. With respect to the usage, it appears there was evidence on both sides ; and the case being encumbered with other points, which may have dis. traded the jury, there is room to believe the determination upon this point was not so clearly and judiciously made, as upon another trial it may be ; and, moreover, upon a second trial, better evidence may be adduced with respect to the custom ; and it is important to the commercial part of society to know certainly whether such a custom is to be relied on or not.
New trial granted.