Northwestern S. S. Co. v. Maritime Ins.

161 F. 166, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4329
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedJanuary 16, 1908
DocketNo. 1,370
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 161 F. 166 (Northwestern S. S. Co. v. Maritime Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Northwestern S. S. Co. v. Maritime Ins., 161 F. 166, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4329 (W.D. Wash. 1908).

Opinion

HANFORD, District Judge.

This action is founded upon a policy insuring the steamship Tacoma, a merchant vessel of the United States, against war risks only, for a voyage from Seattle to Vladivostok, while there, and to a port of safety, with liberty to run blockades, issued during the time of the recent war between Japan and Russia. The Charles Nelson Company, a corporation, doing business at San Francisco, acted as agent for the owner of the ship in obtaining her employment for the voyage in question, and in obtaining through an insurance agency in San Francisco, and brokers in London, insurance on the ship and her cargo — including this policy and other war risk policies. • This policy was issued in England, delivered to the brokers there, and the premium was paid there through the brokers. Therefore I hold that it is an English contract, to be construed and enforced according to English law. It is made upon a printed blank in. the standard form of English marine policies, with certain clauses usual in ordinary marine policies deleted, and additional phrases written in blank spaces so as to make it a war risk policy. The clauses which are important to be considered in this case are as follows:

“Now this policy witnesseth that in consideration of the said person or persons effecting this policy promising to pay the said company the sum of five hundred and eighty-four 'pounds, 12/10d as a i>remium at and after the rate of twenty guineas per cent, for such insurance, the said company takes upon itself the burthen of such insurance to the amount of two thousand, seven hundred and eighty-four ijounds, and promises and agrees with the insured, their executors, administrators and assigns, in all respects truly to perform and fulfill the contract contained in this policy. And it is hereby agreed and [169]*169declared that the said insurance shall he and is an insurance (lost or not lost) at and from Seattle to Vladivostok, while Hiere and hack to a safe neutral port. With liberty to run blockade. To return 5 per cent, for no claim under this policy. This insurance is only to cover those risks excluded by the ‘warranted free of capture, seizure or detention’ clause in marine policy or poli cies. * * * And it shall be lawful for the said ship or vessel in the voyage so insured as aforesaid to proceed and sail to and touch and stay at any ports or places whatsoever without prejudice to this insurance. * * * War risk only. In the event of the vessel making any deviation or change of voyage, it is mutually agreed that such deviation or change shall be held covered at a premium to be arranged, provided due notice be given by the assured on receipt of advice of such deviation or change of voyage.”

Although the policy was issued to the Charles Nelson Company, it was intended to protect the owner of the ship, and there is no controversy as to the right of the plaintiff to collect the insurance by an ac - tion in its own name, if the defendant is liable at all. In attempting to make the voyage contemplated from Seattle to Vladivostok, the ship was detained by ice in the Okhotsk Sea more than 40 days, and when released her fuel and provisions were nearly exhausted, so that necessity compelled her to resort to a near-by Japanese port for supplies, and, while heading for that port, she was captured in the ojien sea by a Japanese cruiser, and was condemned as a prize of war, and confiscated by the Japanese government. It is the intention of this court to not rest this decision upon any fact at variance with the findings of the Prize Court, therefore the lext of its decision will be considered as an exact statement of the grounds for the decree condemn- • ing the vessel. It is as follows:

“Text.
“The American Steamship ‘Tacoma’ is hereby adjudged as a prize of war.
‘‘Facts and Reasons.
“The S. S. Tacoma in question is a merchant ship carrying the American flag, owned by the petitioners and registered at Seattle, Washington, 1J. S. A. The said ship liad taken on hoard about 9,000 barrels of salt beef (sonic barrels have been consumed by the crew of the ship on the voyage from Seattle) consigned by Charles Nelson & Co., San Francisco, for the purpose oi carrying them to Vladivostok. This beef was bought in America to supply Vladivostok on a contract between Dessino, a Russian general in Shanghai, and Denby, a Russian merchant, and Ebbeke & Co., both in Shanghai, in November, 1904; also she took on board some steel bars and a case of machine accessories owned by Alexander Georgovitch Boulman, who is the freight clerk of the ship. That the consignee of said salt beef was Hie Russo-Oliina Bank at Vladivostok, and-the said Boulman (who was commissioned by (he said Denby with lull power to represent or act for him in the business of purchase of goods to be supplied to the government oilieeg. companies, or individuals by Denby. He was also commissioned by the said Ebbeke & Co. to inspect the salt beef bought in America to be sent to Vladivostok, to embark himself on the ship loading said beef, and to deliver it to the consignee) was taken as the freight clerk of the ship by the order of the petitioners. That the master of the ship, while he was instructed by the ship owners on January 2, 1905, to the effect that he should go to Vladivostok, but if ¡here was any obstruction like blockade or ice on the way there then to proceed to Shanghai; liad secured a clearance paper and a bill of health for (Shanghai under false pretenses; in the manifests submitted to the Customs the destination was also made for Shanghai; and in another copy of the manifests the destination was for Shanghai via ports: and that a part in the cargo receipt where the destination was to be entered had been cut off. That the ship sailed from Seattle on January 5, 1905, Shanghai being en[170]*170tered as her destination in the official logbook, the rough log, the mate’s log, and the engineer’s log; on the 19th of the same month leaving Dutch Harbor, where she called to take coal, she sailed along Aleutian Islands, and tried to get to Vladivostok through Okhotsk Sea by Boussole Straits, but on her way she was surrounded by ice, and after drifting about for many days she succeeded in0 continuing her voyage toward her destination on March 13, 1905, and she was cap hired by H. I. M. man of war in the sea about 40 miles southwest of Shibetontera, Point on Shikoku Island at 8 a. m. on March 14th last.
“The above facts áre supported by the statement made by Dieut. Wataru Ukawa, an acting officer for the commander of H. I. M. S. Takaehiko, the statements of inquiries made of the said officer, S. S. Connauton, the master of the Tacoma, and Alexander Georgeviteh Boulman, a Russian freight clerk of the ship, the documents seized from the said Boulman, the ship’s registry, the bill of lading; though the ship’s master declares this hill serves for both the hill of lading and the charter party, we consider it is only a bill of lading by its nature, the clearance papers, the bill of health, two copies of manifests, the cargo receipt, the logbook, the rough log, the mate’s log, the engineer’s log, and a letter addressed to the ship’s master by his owners dated January 2, 1905.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F. 166, 1908 U.S. App. LEXIS 4329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwestern-s-s-co-v-maritime-ins-wawd-1908.