Sun Ins. v. Hope

D. Washington

Sun Ins. v. Hope

49 F. 279, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26

DecidedFebruary 11, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 49 F. 279 (Sun Ins. v. Hope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sun Ins. v. Hope, 49 F. 279, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26 (washd 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Hanford, District Judge.

This is a suit in rem, to recover the amount of a premium for marine insurance issued to the owner of the vessel libeled. The claimant has filed exceptions to the libel on the ground that there is no lien to support process in rem, and the court is without jurisdiction. There is no statute giving a lien for insurance premiums in this state, and whether such a lien exists under the general maritime law is a question upon which I find a conflict of authority. But a majority of the cases, and I think the weightier decisions, affirm that insurance for the personal benefit of an owner is not essential to render a vessel seaworthy, or an aid to navigation, and there can be no reason for giving credit to the vessel for such expense; therefore, the lien does not exist. Henry, Adm. p. 130; The John T. Moore, 3 Woods, 61; The Jennie B. Gilkey, 19 Fed. Rep. 127; The Waubaushene, 22 Fed. Rep. 109; note to The Dolphin, 1 Flip. 580. I hold to this view, and will sustain the exceptions.

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

Hanford, District Judge.

This is a suit in rem, to recover the amount of a premium for marine insurance issued to the owner of the vessel libeled. The claimant has filed exceptions to the libel on the ground that there is no lien to support process in rem, and the court is without jurisdiction. There is no statute giving a lien for insurance premiums in this state, and whether such a lien exists under the general maritime law is a question upon which I find a conflict of authority. But a majority of the cases, and I think the weightier decisions, affirm that insurance for the personal benefit of an owner is not essential to render a vessel seaworthy, or an aid to navigation, and there can be no reason for giving credit to the vessel for such expense; therefore, the lien does not exist. Henry, Adm. p. 130; The John T. Moore, 3 Woods, 61; The Jennie B. Gilkey, 19 Fed. Rep. 127; The Waubaushene, 22 Fed. Rep. 109; note to The Dolphin, 1 Flip. 580. I hold to this view, and will sustain the exceptions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 F. 279, 1892 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sun-ins-v-hope-washd-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack