Howell v. Philadelphia Mut. Ins. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland

Howell v. Philadelphia Mut. Ins. Co.

12 F. Cas. 706, 25 Hunt Mer. Mag. 80

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland

DecidedJuly 15, 1851

StatusPublished

This text of 12 F. Cas. 706 (Howell v. Philadelphia Mut. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Howell v. Philadelphia Mut. Ins. Co., 12 F. Cas. 706, 25 Hunt Mer. Mag. 80 (circtdmd 1851).

Pincite

Opinion

In this case, among other points, the defendants contended that there can be no sale, as under necessity, by the master, which can bind the underwriters where the circumstances antecedent to the sale do not authorize an abandonment; and that there was no right, in these cases before the court, to abandon, as the estimate of necessary repairs did not exceed half of the amount at which the ship was valued in the policies; these containing a clause that fixes the policy valuation as the only standard, in any case of loss, constructive or actual. THE COURT decided all these positions for the defendants, and recognized- the policy valuation as the only and binding value under the .special clause referred to for claims of loss. The authority to sell from necessity as given to the master by various decisions, so as to implicate insurers in a total loss with salvage, has rested on very vague grounds hitherto. But this decision of establishing that as to insurers it is only the right to abandon that makes the necessity, justice, gives definiteness to the principle of “necessary" sales in, at least, a very large class of cases of loss.

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

In this case, among other points, the defendants contended that there can be no sale, as under necessity, by the master, which can bind the underwriters where the circumstances antecedent to the sale do not authorize an abandonment; and that there was no right, in these cases before the court, to abandon, as the estimate of necessary repairs did not exceed half of the amount at which the ship was valued in the policies; these containing a clause that fixes the policy valuation as the only standard, in any case of loss, constructive or actual. THE COURT decided all these positions for the defendants, and recognized- the policy valuation as the only and binding value under the .special clause referred to for claims of loss. The authority to sell from necessity as given to the master by various decisions, so as to implicate insurers in a total loss with salvage, has rested on very vague grounds hitherto. But this decision of establishing that as to insurers it is only the right to abandon that makes the necessity, justice, gives definiteness to the principle of “necessary" sales in, at least, a very large class of cases of loss.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 F. Cas. 706, 25 Hunt Mer. Mag. 80, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-philadelphia-mut-ins-co-circtdmd-1851.