Robertson v. Columbian Insurance
This text of 8 Johns. 491 (Robertson v. Columbian Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
There was no necessity for going from. Teneriffe to Madeira. It was sailing on a different voyage from the one insured.. The master went there to sell his cargo; and for the same reason, he might have gone to Lisbon. It was a voluntary deviation from the voyage zmentioned in the policy. Nothing but necessity, or an apprehension of danger, could excuse his departure from the usual and direct route to Bonavista; and as this part of the voyage xyas abandoned and never commenced, the plaintiff is entitled to a return of the one per cent, premium mentioned in the policy, and no more.
Judgment accordingly. .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 Johns. 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-columbian-insurance-nysupct-1811.