Bauduy v. Union Ins. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court

Bauduy v. Union Ins. Co.

2 F. Cas. 1039, 2 Wash. C. C. 391

CourtUnited States Circuit Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1809

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 F. Cas. 1039 (Bauduy v. Union Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bauduy v. Union Ins. Co., 2 F. Cas. 1039, 2 Wash. C. C. 391 (uscirct 1809).

Pincite

Opinion

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,

charged the jury. There are three questions in this cause, neither of which is involved in any difficulty. First; did the plaintiffs authorize Mr. Ralston to insure their part of the money shipped? secondly; did he insure it? and, thirdly; if he had insured it, can the plaintiffs recover in this action. The two first depend upon the facts proved in the cause, and nothing can be more clear, than that Mr. Ralston was not requested to insure any part of this money, as the property of the plaintiffs; and that he did insure it, believing it to be his own. He has stated, that whilst he supposed his name was intended to be used to cover the property of others, he declined insuring at all, and was only induced to do so, from the representation of one of the partners, that the money was his own. But if he had insured it as the property of the plaintiffs, still they could not recover in this action, inasmuch as the non-disclosure to the defendants, that it belonged to persons established and carrying on trade in a belligerent country, was so obviously material to the risk, as to avoid the policy.

Verdict for the defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,

charged the jury. There are three questions in this cause, neither of which is involved in any difficulty. First; did the plaintiffs authorize Mr. Ralston to insure their part of the money shipped? secondly; did he insure it? and, thirdly; if he had insured it, can the plaintiffs recover in this action. The two first depend upon the facts proved in the cause, and nothing can be more clear, than that Mr. Ralston was not requested to insure any part of this money, as the property of the plaintiffs; and that he did insure it, believing it to be his own. He has stated, that whilst he supposed his name was intended to be used to cover the property of others, he declined insuring at all, and was only induced to do so, from the representation of one of the partners, that the money was his own. But if he had insured it as the property of the plaintiffs, still they could not recover in this action, inasmuch as the non-disclosure to the defendants, that it belonged to persons established and carrying on trade in a belligerent country, was so obviously material to the risk, as to avoid the policy.

Verdict for the defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 F. Cas. 1039, 2 Wash. C. C. 391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauduy-v-union-ins-co-uscirct-1809.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack