Court Opinion

ID: 3618722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 00:01:08.037467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:07:35.558429
License: Public Domain

This is an action upon a policy of insurance upon the freight-list of the schooner Europa for $1,500, effected with the defendant by one Bruce, from whom, through an intermediate assignee from him after the loss, the plaintiff claims title. Bruce took out separate policies in separate insurance companies on the vessel, cargo and freight respectively. The voyage was from Chicago to Buffalo, and shortly before reaching Buffalo, and distant about six miles therefrom, the schooner went ashore and was lost. No question is made but that she was lost by some of the perils insured against. No question can be made, I think, but that there was a total loss, at all events, of the vessel. The fact found is, that she "was by the force of the winds and the waves, driven ashore where there was no port, and there went to pieces and became a total loss." She was thereupon promptly abandoned to the underwriters, and the abandonment was accepted. The cargo was also, on the day of the disaster, abandoned to the underwriters, and such abandonment was accepted. A portion of the cargo, about three-fourths thereof, was subsequently recovered by the underwriters, and taken by them in other vessels to Buffalo, the port of destination. On the same day also, that the disaster occurred, the contract of affreightment and the freight-list were abandoned to the defendant, and the defendant accepted the same. These facts are all found in the case, and no exception is taken to them. The only exceptions in the case are to the finding and decision of the court, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole amount of the freight covered *Page 256 
by the policy of insurance, to wit: $1,500 and interest; whereas, the court should (as it claimed) have decided that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover for a partial loss; and secondly, that the court decided as a question of law on the facts found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover as for a total loss.
The positions taken by the defendant upon this appeal are, as I understand them, 1st. That there was not in fact a total loss of the cargo, or of the freight, and no such acceptance of an abandonment as would extend the right of the insured to recover beyond his actual loss. 2d. That if there was a total loss of the freight, or one which under the acts of the parties must be treated as such, it occurred by the acts or omissions of Bruce, for which the defendants are not liable.
I. That there was a total loss of the vessel, and an effectual abandonment of her as such to the underwriters, is established by the proof in the case, and found by the court which tried the cause, and is not now open to further examination here. But as the vessel, the cargo and the freight are distinct interests, it is a possible circumstance that a total loss of the vessel would not necessarily involve a total loss also of the cargo and of the freight. In one sense, there was not a total loss of the cargo; for of the 16,000 bushels of wheat with which the vessel was laden, 12,000 bushels reached Buffalo, though in a damaged condition, notwithstanding the disaster. But if the question in this case was as to the right to recover for the cargo as a total loss, I do not see how it could be effectually disputed. It affirmatively appears that the underwriters accepted the abandonment of the cargo, and this implies a surrender of it by Bruce into their possession, and complete control of it by them. It was abandoned as a total loss, and they accepted it as such. They took possession of it, and themselves caused it to be taken to Buffalo. It was an act performed for their own benefit and their own indemnity. The wheat so taken to Buffalo belonged to *Page 257 
them, and was at their disposal. They could not have compelled the owner or consignee to receive it; nor could he, after an effectual abandonment, demand it or recover it. He had no right to it. In its damaged condition he would not of course have received it; nor could the carrier, independent of the question of abandonment, have compelled its acceptance by him. It is claimed on the part of the appellant, that there was no valid or sufficient acceptance of the abandonment. The question is not open to debate. The fact is found otherwise, and is not subject to review here. The legal effect of the acceptance of an abandonment, is to concede the right of abandonment and the fact of total loss. They are no longer open to question. They are, in the absence of fraud or mistake, conclusive upon the parties, and the underwriters cannot refuse to pay the whole sum insured. (Philips on Insurance, §§ 1697-1705; Arnould on Insurance, 1172;Smith v. Robertson, 2 Dowl. 474.)
The same difficulty meets the defendants on the subject of the freight list. It was abandoned to the defendants, and they accepted it. No fraud, mistake or ignorance of the facts is pretended. Such acceptance is conclusive upon them, as before stated. They have no longer any right to object that the loss was not total, nor that for any other reason it was not a case for abandonment. It is said that the act of the defendant's agent is equivocal both as to the intent and the authority to accept the abandonment. But the evidence is sufficiently clear to justify the finding of the court, and the fact is found — is not the subject of exception, and is not open to controversy. It is claimed that the act of abandonment of the freight, if rightfully made, and whether accepted or not, being made at a point intermediate the port of shipment and the port of delivery, could not entitle the ship owner to full freight as for a completed voyage, but only pro rata itineris, and that it was the duty of Bruce, as owner of the vessel, to offer to carry forward the part of the cargo which survived the *Page 258 
wreck to its place of destination, and earn freight thereon, and if he failed or refused to do so, and thereby the cargo was lost, the defendants are not liable for a total loss, but only for such portion of the loss as they would have been chargeable with if the ship owner had done his duty.
But this is an imperfect view of the relations of the parties and of the facts of the case. When the disaster occurred the freight had not been earned; and if the ship owner improperly terminated the voyage at that point, he had no right to demand any freight whatever. He abandoned the vessel, the cargo, and the freight list. These abandonments were accepted by the underwriters. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider whether they were lawfully made. The defendants are foreclosed from disputing them, at least that involving the freight list. The effect of such abandonment and acceptance was to put the defendants in Bruce's place as to the obligation to earn freight, and the right to recover therefor. As between themselves and the owners of the cargo, they were probably bound to carry the cargo, or so much as was saved from shipwreck, to the port of destination. But as between them and Bruce, having accepted the abandonment of the freight list as for a total loss, we must treat it as such, and give effect to it accordingly. We must, I think, regard it in the same light as if the voyage had been completed and the freight fully earned. Hence the plaintiffs would be entitled to recover the full amount of the freight.
The judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
All the judges concurring, judgment affirmed. *Page 259