Court Opinion

ID: 9299317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:05:54.488936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:37.356732
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice
(charging jury). Customs acquire the force of law, because. as they must be ancient, uniform, and reasonable, they must have been generally received, known, and approved. The custom of merchants is founded on general consent *130and usage practised amongst merchants; and may or ought to be known by all who enter into negotiations within the influence of this law. The usage of a particular trade, is supposed to be known by those who engage in that trade; it is or ought to be equally well known by the person who insures against the risks incident to that trade, as to the person engaging in it. But that which is called a usage, in this case, is nothing more than a rule established by a particular class of men, to control a contract entered into by them with others, not privy nor consenting to the rule; and who are and can be under no legal obligation to know of its existence. It is a law governing this species of contract, different from the general law upon the subject, and varying the general rules of evidence. I will not say, that if both parties consented, the assured might not bind himself to agree to such a mode of adjustment; or that if the assured knew of the rule, and that it was uniform, he would not be bound by it under an implied consent. But I hold it necessary, that notice to the assured of such a rule should be proved, or the evidence should be such that the jury might fairly presume it. The rule in this case is in direct hostility with the plain meaning of the contract, and is intended to make it speak a language totally different from the obvious import of the words. The policy obliges the company to pay the value of the nett freight, and the rule excuses them from this obligation. upon their paying two-thirds of the gross freight. The face of the contract, so far from leading the assured to make inquiries respecting this rule, is calculated to deceive the party into a contrary belief. The rule is unequal and unreasonable, because the same deduction being made whether the voyage be long or short, the indemnity, in two cases exactly alike, except as to the length of the voyage, might be complete in one case, and fall very short of it in the other. If the assured always knew that the rule of the office was not to insure more than two-thirds of the nett freight, he might make it a valued policy, or cover the residue in some other office. The introduction of a very few words into the police, would remove all inconvenience, by expressing the interest intended to be covered. That the rule is very little known, even by those who have been insured, is clear from the evidence of the adjusting clerk; who can furnish but one instance of a return premium upon the one-third not covered, where the vessel went safe; and yet it is scarcely to be supposed, that if the rule had been generally known, similar returns would not always have been demanded. Upon the whole, I think the plaintiff is entitled to recover one-third of the nett freight, which the jury would adjust.
In conformity with tin's charge, the jury found a verdict for 11,S04 dollars.