The insurance upon life is a contract by which an underwriter, for a certain sum, proportioned to the risk (judged of from the age, state of health, or profession of the person whose life is to be insured), engages to pay a certain sum, should the person die within the time limited in the policy. To prevent the application of this useful expedient to the improper purposes to which it was sometimes applied, it was enacted that no insurance shall be made on the life or lives of any person or persons, wherein the person, for whose use the policy is made, shall have no pecuniary interest; or by way of gaming or wagering; policies made contrary thereto being declared void and null.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Insurance.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Insurance |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Archibald and James Robertson v. John Laird | 1790 | Adjudication, Arrestment, Aliment, Inhibition, Insurance, Defamation | Thomas Cochran, weaver in Leith, filed answers to the petition of Margaret Clark, spouse of James Greig, sailor in Leith, responding to allegations of riot and damage. Based on the single document cataloged for this case. |
| Craig and Hyslop v. Spence, et al | 1793 | Insurance, Ships, Jurisdiction, Bill of Exchange, Evidence, Jettison | James Craig and William Hyslop pursued John Spence and other Edinburgh underwriters for a partial loss on a cargo of wheat, petitioning the Court to address an interlocutor that had found the underwriters liable. The defenders answered, denying that the vessel had stranded and contending that the damage did not constitute general average. Hislop subsequently petitioned the Court regarding the policy’s exclusion of average loss for perishable goods and the applicability of the stranding exception to the loss. |
| Cunningham & Co. v. Craigie | 1789 | Insurance, Arrestment, Deviation, Creditor, Debt, Prize | William Cunningham and Company, merchants in Glasgow, pursued Laurence Craigie and other insurers to overturn Lord Dreghorn's interlocutor that assoilzied the defenders, seeking recovery under a 1783 policy. The defenders answered that the policy was void for concealment of a voyage to Charlestown carrying British troops and for material alteration of the terms from a voyage to St Thomas. The pursuers subsequently petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor, while the respondents denied any knowing intent to deviate to Charlestown and maintained that the policy covered only the voyage to St Thomas with a convoy call serving as a risk-reducing clause. |
| Duckett v. Williams | 1832 | Fraud, Insurance, Aliment, Thirlage, Policy coverage, Evidence | |
| Dunmore and Company v. Allan, et al | 1786 | Ships, Insurance, Warranty, Adjudication, Bill of Exchange, Contract | Robert Dunmore and Company, merchants in Glasgow, raised an action against Richard Allan and other insurers in Glasgow and Archibald Campbell and other insurers in Greenock regarding a maritime insurance contract and questions of convoy obligations and warranty terms. The merchants petitioned the Court to overturn an interlocutor pronounced by Lord Braxfield, and the insurers answered the petition. |
| Forbes, Hunter, and Company v. Edinburgh Life Assurance Company | 1829 | Insurance, Contract, Debt, Bill of Exchange, Representation, Aliment | Sir William Forbes, James Hunter, and Company, bankers, raised an action against the Edinburgh Life Assurance Company to recover £3000 sterling payable under a policy of assurance. The defenders resisted payment, asserting that the policy was void due to misrepresentation and the non-statement of material facts at the time of effecting the insurance. The cause subsequently proceeded to a Bill of Exceptions for the defenders. |
| Jack and Others v. Murdoch, Fearns and Company | 1795 | Insurance, Bill of Exchange, Adjudication, Debt, Sequestration, Oath | Digitization and description in progress. |
| James Donaldson and James Pinkerton v. The Manchester Insurance Company | 1831 | Insurance, Debt, Insurance Claim, Bill of Exchange, Interest, Assignment | James Donaldson and James Pinkerton raised an action against the Manchester Insurance Company to recover payment under a fire insurance policy for wheat destroyed in 1829, claiming £408 1s. 11d. plus interest and costs. The defenders denied the competence of the action and asserted that the claim was void and barred. The parties thereafter joined issue on whether the defenders were liable for the loss of wheat and whether the policy had been discharged. |
| M'Callum, et al v. Hunter, et al | 1786 | Debt, Fraud, Creditor, Insurance, Reduction, Sequestration | The creditors of Kenneth M'Callum pursued Robert Hunter and other London underwriters to recover the sum insured on the ship *New York*. The underwriters alleged that the vessel had been wilfully destroyed by its owners to defraud them and resisted payment. The creditors maintained that the policy remained valid and that M'Callum bore no liability for the loss. |
| Ross v. Forbes, Hunter, and Company | 1792 | Agent, Interlocutor, Insurance, Creditor, Debt, Statute | Donald Ross petitioned the Court to alter its recent interlocutor in an action against Forbes, Hunter, and Company regarding liability for damages. The defenders answered petitions by Catharine Ross and Alexander Mackenzie by arguing that they were not liable because the broker and underwriters were directly responsible. The litigation thus turned on whether the defenders could avoid liability by attributing responsibility to these third parties. |
