The Maryland Insurance Company v. Ruden Administrator

• Decision Date: 01 February 1810
• Citation: 6 Cranch 338,10 U.S. 338,3 L.Ed. 242
• Parties: THE MARYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY v. RUDEN'S ADMINISTRATOR
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

10 U.S. 338

6 Cranch 338

3 L.Ed. 242

THE MARYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY v. RUDEN'S ADMINISTRATOR.

February Term, 1810

ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Maryland in an action of covenant upon a policy of insurance upon the cargo of the brig Sally at and from Surinam to New-York.

There was no warranty as to the character of the property.

Upon the trial below the plaintiffs in error took three bills of exception; and the verdict and judgment being against them, they brought their writ of error.

The cause was argued by Winder and Martin, for the plaintiffs in error, and by Harper, for the defendant.

The case being fully stated by the Chief Justice in delivering the opinion of the court, it is deemed unnecessary to report the arguments of counsel.

March 17.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court as follows:

This case depends on the correctness of the circuit court in giving some opinions, and refusing others, to which exceptions have been taken.

It appears that, on the 22d of October, the assured received notice of the capture of the vessel insured, and that, on the 25th, he wrote a letter abandoning to the underwriters, which letter was received in course of the mail, and immediately acted upon. Some reasons were assigned, by the plaintiff below, for not having abandoned more immediately after receiving notice of the capture, and the defendant below moved the court to instruct the jury that the assured did not elect to abandon in reasouable time. To the refusal of the court to give this instruction the first exception is taken.

It has been repeatedly declared by this court that what is reasonable time for abandonment is a question compounded of fact and law, of which the jury must judge under the direction of a court. It does not appear that the court below erred in refusing, in this case, to give the instruction required.

The insured was a subject of a belligerent power, but had resided four years in the United States. His letter, representing the risk, was laid before the jury, and a good deal of testimony was taken to prove that a belligerent not named in the representation was interested in the cargo. Some counter testimony was also introduced by the assured. Whereupon the counsel for the underwriters moved the court to instruct the jury that, if they believe the facts stated by him, there was such a concealment as, in contemplation of law, vitiated the policy. This direction the court refused to give, but did...