Le Roy v. Gouverneur

1 Johns. Cas. 226
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1800·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no doubt that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a proportion of the general average occasioned by the jettison. The ship, freight and cargo, must contribute to this loss. The claim for a total loss depends On the construction to be given to the exception in the memorandum, free from average unless general.” • The French writers, Yalin, Emergion and Pothier, consider it as protecting the underwriter from every partial, but not against any total loss.

The English construction is. that the protection extends to all losses except an actual, as distinguished from a techni[273]*273cal total loss. (3 Burr. 1550. Park, 114, 116. Millar, 359, S. C.) The clause appears to have been introduced in the year 1749, and the English decisions upon it recognize a usage conformable to this construction, coeval with the introduction of the clause.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the rule must be the same with us, and of course, that the plaintiffs can recover for the general average only. (Marsh. 138-155.)

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

Le Roy v. Gouverneur, 1 Johns. Cas. 226 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1800).

1 Johns. Cas. 226 (Le Roy v. Gouverneur) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carr v. . Security Insurance Co.
17 N.E. 369 (New York Court of Appeals, 1888)
Burt v. Brewers & Maltsters' Insurance
16 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 383 (New York Supreme Court, 1876)
Hugg v. Augusta Insurance and Banking Co.
48 U.S. 595 (Supreme Court, 1849)
Saltus v. Ocean Insurance
14 Johns. 138 (New York Supreme Court, 1817)
Bakewell v. United Insurance
2 Johns. Cas. 246 (New York Supreme Court, 1801)