Leeds v. Marine Insurance Company

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation2 Wheat. 380,4 L.Ed. 266,15 U.S. 380
Decision Date15 March 1817
PartiesLEEDS v. The MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY of Alexandria

15 U.S. 380
2 Wheat. 380
4 L.Ed. 266
LEEDS
v.
The MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY of Alexandria.
March 15, 1817
March 14th.

This cause was argued by Mr. Swann, for the appellants, and by Mr. Lee for the respondents.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Mr. Justice WASHINGTON.

This is a bill filed on the equity side of the circuit court of the district of Columbia, for the county of Alexandria, by the Marine Insurance Company of Alexandria against Jedediah Leeds, praying for an injunction to a judgment obtained at law in that court against the said company by William Hodgson, for the use of George F. Straas and the said Jedediah Leeds. The judgment was obtained by Hodgson on a policy of insurance, dated the 30th of September, 1799, effected by him with the said company on the brig Hope, in his own name, for George F. Straas and others, of Richmond.

The bill states that, in the year 1810, the above judgment was obtained for the use and benefit of

Page 381

George F. Straas, and the respondent Jedediah Leeds. That, previous to the said insurance, the said George F. Straas, and Jedediah Leeds, being owners of a vessel called the Sophia, did, through the agency of the said William Hodgson, effect an insurance on the said vessel, the Sophia; for the premium on which, amounting to 2,754 dollars, Hodgson gave his own note. That Straas paid 929 dollars in part of the premium note; and claiming a return of permium to the amount of the residue of the said note, he obtained an injunction in the court of chancery of Virginia, which was finally dissolved.

The ground on which that injunction is prayed, is, that the balance of the premium due upon the insurance of the Sophia ought to be offset, so far as it goes, against the judgment at law upon the policy of the Hope.

The answer of Leeds denies that he had any interest in the Sophia at the time the insurance mentioned in the bill was effected, or that he was in any manner concerned in that insurance. He states that within a few months after the insurance on the Hope was effected, and long before the judgment in law was obtained, he had acquired by purchase from Straas and a Mr. Trouin, the other owner of the Hope, all their interest in that vessel, and in the policy of insurance which had been effected upon her. He, therefore denies the allegation in the bill, that the judgment upon that policy was obtained for the use of Straas, or for that of any other person than himself. The answer refers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Rojas v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 20SC399
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 22, 2022
    ...in American common law. The Supreme Court first referenced the doctrine in 1817, Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 380, 383, 4 L.Ed. 266 (1817), and Colorado courts have recognized it since at least the 1870s, see Doane v. Glenn, 1 Colo. 495, 499-501 (1872), rev'd on other ground......
  • Rojas v. People, 20SC399
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 21, 2022
    ...¶18 Res gestae has deep roots in American common law. The Supreme Court first referenced the doctrine in 1817, Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 15 U.S. 380, 383 (1817), and Colorado courts have recognized it since at least the 1870s, see Doane v. Glenn, 1 Colo. 495, 499-501 (1872), rev'd on other ......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dyer, No. 89-8074
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1994
    ...who are challenging diversity jurisdiction in the instant case. See Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 380, 381, 4 L.Ed. 266 (1817) ("the answer of one defendant cannot be used as evidence against his co-defendant"); Milton Roy Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 418 F.Supp. ......
  • In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. et al, No. 8
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1895
    ...an answer in an action at law. Equity Rule 41, as amended at December term, 1871 (13 Wall. xi.); Equity Rule 60; Leeds v. Insurance Co., 2 Wheat. 380; Reynolds v. Bank, 112 U. S. 405, 409, 5 Sup. Ct. 213; Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 244, 250, 251, 9 Sup. Ct. 36. For the purpose of the he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Rojas v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 20SC399
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 22, 2022
    ...in American common law. The Supreme Court first referenced the doctrine in 1817, Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 380, 383, 4 L.Ed. 266 (1817), and Colorado courts have recognized it since at least the 1870s, see Doane v. Glenn, 1 Colo. 495, 499-501 (1872), rev'd on other ground......
  • Rojas v. People, 20SC399
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • February 21, 2022
    ...¶18 Res gestae has deep roots in American common law. The Supreme Court first referenced the doctrine in 1817, Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co., 15 U.S. 380, 383 (1817), and Colorado courts have recognized it since at least the 1870s, see Doane v. Glenn, 1 Colo. 495, 499-501 (1872), rev'd on other ......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Dyer, No. 89-8074
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 15, 1994
    ...who are challenging diversity jurisdiction in the instant case. See Leeds v. Marine Ins. Co. of Alexandria, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 380, 381, 4 L.Ed. 266 (1817) ("the answer of one defendant cannot be used as evidence against his co-defendant"); Milton Roy Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 418 F.Supp. ......
  • In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. et al, No. 8
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 23, 1895
    ...an answer in an action at law. Equity Rule 41, as amended at December term, 1871 (13 Wall. xi.); Equity Rule 60; Leeds v. Insurance Co., 2 Wheat. 380; Reynolds v. Bank, 112 U. S. 405, 409, 5 Sup. Ct. 213; Banks v. Manchester, 128 U. S. 244, 250, 251, 9 Sup. Ct. 36. For the purpose of the he......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT