1865. HOUGHTON v. EMPIRE MARINE damage made good to them by the defendants, and alleged as a breach that the defendants refused to compensate the plaintiffs for the same. Plea (inter alia).-That the said ship did not, when at INSURANCE CO. Havana aforesaid, after the commencement and during the continuance of the said risk, sustain injury by the perils insured against as alleged.-Issue thereon. The cause was tried, before Montague Smith, J., at the last Liverpool Summer Assizes, when the policy set out in the declaration was proved, and the following facts appeared (as stated in the judgment of Pigott, B., post, p. 52.)— The ship was insured from Nassau to Havana, and went to the latter place with a cargo of coals. The captain proved that he arrived at Havana on the 5th May, 1864, and took a pilot as soon as he got inside the harbour: that he then took a steam tug. His instructions to the pilot were to take him to a clear anchorage. The tug took her up through the harbour and the shipping to a place called the "Regla Shoal," and when past the thick of the shipping above the city the ship began to stir the mud, but was not felt to take ground. The pilot then gave orders to let go the anchor, and the hawser which connected the ship with the tug having broken, the pilot went on shore, and the ship remained in that place. On the next morning the captain attempted to get her head to wind, but could not, and later in the day found that she had sustained damage from the anchor of another ship. She was afterwards got to her place of discharge, nearer the mouth of the harbour than where the shoal was, and at a place pointed out by the purchaser of the cargo.-A chart of the harbour of Havana was also in evidence. It was agreed by counsel that the only question was, whether the risk had attached at the time when the damage occurred. A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff for 3531. 5s. 1d., with leave to the defendants to move to enter a verdict or nonsuit; the Court to be at liberty to draw inferences of fact. Edward James, in the present Term, obtained a rule nisi accordingly, on the ground that the policy never attached, the vessel not having arrived at Havana within the meaning of the policy; against which Brett and Baylis shewed cause (Nov. 22).- The first question is, what is the true definition of the ship being at Havana; secondly, do the facts bring the case within that definition? In nautical phraseology the ship was at Havana when she entered the harbour. There is a difference between a ship being off a place and at a place. Where the ship is at a place, the policy does not commence unless she is seaworthy, because in every policy there is an implied condition that the ship shall be seaworthy when the risk attaches. In the case of goods and freight the risk will only attach when the goods are loaded on board. This ship was geographically "at" Havana when the damage occurred. A ship is "at" London when she is in the port of London, although she has to wait her turn to unload. When a ship comes into Dover Roads she is "off" Dover, but when she enters the piers of the harbour she is "at" Dover. [Martin, B.-The word "at" may have two meanings. In common parlance a vessel is "at" Dover when she is so near that her passengers would go on shore.] If a ship be insured "at and from" a home port, the risk commences immediately on the execution of the policy. If it be "at and from" some foreign port at which the ship is expected to arrive the risk does not attach unless the ship has arrived at the outward port in such a seaworthy condition as to lie there in safety: Parmeter v. Cousins (a), Bell v. Bell (b), Arnould on Insurance, part 1, chap. ix., p. 388, (a) 2 Camp. 235. (b) 2 Camp. 475. 1865. HOUGHTON V. EMPIRE MARINE INSURANCE Co. 1865. HOUGHTON v. EMPIRE INSURANCE CO. 3rd ed. No doubt, under the policy on the outward voyage, the insurance would have continued until the ship had been moored at anchor twenty-four hours; but where an insurance. is "at and from" some foreign port, the risk on the homeward voyage attaches although the outward policy is not at an end. In Motteux v. The London Assurance Company (a) Lord Hardwicke, C., said there was a case before him upon a trial at Guildhall, and it was then debated whether the words "at and from Bengal to England" meant the first arrival of the ship at Bengal. And it was agreed the words "first arrival" were implied and always understood in policies. In Phillips on Insurance (b) it is laid down that in insurance on a vessel "at" a port, the risk generally commences from the time of its being there. Reference is made to a case of Patrick v. Ludlow (c), in which Kent, J., said: "The true rule on this subject is that at and from, when applied to a ship includes the period of her stay in the port from the time of her arrival there. But at and from, when applied to goods, means from the time those goods are put on board the vessel." The learned author proceeds to say (d) that "under a policy on a ship at and from a foreign port, the risk is held not to commence till she is there in safety." In the case of Seamans v. Loring (e), Story, J., said:"The next question is, at what time, if ever, did the policy attach? The insurance is, 'at and from,' &c. What is the true construction of these words in policies must in some measure depend upon the state of things, and the situation of the parties at the time of underwriting the policy. If at that time the vessel be abroad in a foreign port, or expected to arrive at such port in the course of a (a) 1 Atk. 544. 548. (b) Chap. xi., sect. 1. 932, p. 506, 3rd ed. (c) 3 Johns. Cas. N. Y. 10, 14. MICHAELMAS TERM, 29 VICT. voyage, the policy, by the word at,' will attach upon the yessel and cargo from the time of her arrival at such port. If, on the other hand, the vessel has been a long time in such port without reference to any particular voyage, the policy will attach only from the time that preparations are begun to be made with reference to the voyage insured." Palmer v. Marshall (a) is also an authority that under a policy at and from a place the risk attaches when the vessel is at the place. The word "at" must be construed in a geographical and popular sense. They also argued that the ship had in fact anchored in the harbour, at a place beyond that of her ultimate discharge, before the damage occurred. Potter (with whom was Edward James), in support of the rule. The ship did not arrive at Havana within the meaning of the policy. The word "at" means at the place where, if the ship had been moored in safety twentyfour hours, the underwriters on an outward policy would be discharged. It is not necessary that the outward policy should have expired; when the ship arrives at her place of mooring the outward and homeward policies overlap, until the expiration of twenty-four hours, when the homeward policy becomes the only security. Although a ship may, in a popular and geographical sense, be said to arrive at a place, yet the risk continues until she has reached her place of discharge, and been moored there twenty-four hours in safety: Samuel v. The Royal Exchange Assurance Company (b). This ship never arrived at her place of discharge in safety. Where a ship insured to Havana, on arriving was ordered to anchor under the Moro Castle, at the entrance of the harbour, because a frigate was about passing, and after the frigate had passed it was too late to (a) 8 Bing. 79. (b) 8 B. & C. 119. VOL. IV.-H. & C. E EXCH. 1865. HOUGHTON 2'. EMPIRE MARINE INSURANCE Co, 1865. HOUGHTON V. EMPIRE INSURANCE CO. get the ship under way that day; on the next day, in crossing the harbour, and more than twenty-four hours after she had come to anchor under the castle, she struck on a shoal in the harbour, it was held that she had not been moored twenty-four hours in good safety: Zacharie v. The Orleans Insurance Company (a), Phillips on Insurance, chap. XI., sect. II., 968, p. 535. In a note to Parmeter v. Cousins (b) the learned reporter observes that "perhaps it might have been better to have held that policy on the homeward voyage commences at the time when that on the outward voyage expires. Suppose a ship to arrive safe at the outward port, and to be wrecked or captured before she has been moored twenty-four hours in good safety, the assured being more than ordinarily protected during this period, may make their election between the underwriters on the outward or on the homeward voyage; and some confusion, if not injustice, may arise in finally adjusting the loss." Cur, adv. vult. In Hilary Vacation, 1866 (Feb. 26), the following judgments were delivered. CHANNELL, B.-This was an action on a valued policy on the ship "Urgent," lost or not lost, at and from Havana to Greenock, and the question for us to determine is, whether or not the risk had attached at the time when the damage occurred. A verdict was entered at the trial for the plaintiff, and a rule has been obtained by the defendants to enter a nonsuit pursuant to leave reserved. The facts are before us on the Judge's notes, and in certain documents admitted in evidence, and we are to be at liberty to draw inferences of fact. It appears that the "Urgent," having arrived off the |