Parker v. Jones

13 Mass. 173
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 15, 1816
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 13 Mass. 173 (Parker v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Parker v. Jones, 13 Mass. 173 (Mass. 1816).

Opinion

By the Court.

It is generally true, that an insurer is not liable for losses arising from a breach of the trade laws of the foreign country to which the voyage insured is made ; unless such risk is expressly assumed, or must be presumed by necessary implication to have been intended to be taken. Insurance against such loss is. * undoubtedly a legal contract. In the case before us, it sufficiently appears, that the loss was owing to that cause.

It has been argued, that the defendant must be understood to have taken this risk, because he was informed of the nature of the voyage. But it is well understood, that some trade may be lawfully carried on at Curapoa; and the presumption does not necessarily arise, except in cases where none but a contraband trade can be carried on.

The Order in Council has been relied on, as relaxing generally the British colonial system. But this order was known to have been intended for no other purpose than to meet and counteract the restrictive measures of the government of the United States. It provided only, that vessels, which had escaped from our ports without regular clearances, and apparently bound to their colonies with provisions, should not be molested by their cruisers. The vessel, in this case, was not condemned for being without the usual documentary papers, but for a breach of the general standing laws of trade, as enforced in the British colonies. It was not, then, a loss within the policy declared on.

Judgment on the verdict.

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

Related

Btesh v. Royal Ins.
40 F.2d 659 (S.D. New York, 1930)
Archibald v. Mercantile Insurance
20 Mass. 70 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1825)
Andrews v. Essex Fire & Marine Ins.
1 F. Cas. 885 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1822)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Mass. 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-jones-mass-1816.