| 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. |
| Thomas Wake and Attorney v. Hillary Bauerman & Son, and Jacob Runke Jacobs |
1800
|
Adjudication, Property, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Possession, Prize |
A ship belonging to pursuer Thomas Wake, "The Mary of Sunderland," was captured by a French privateer and taken to the Netherlands. The French Commissary of Marine and Commerce, sitting in Amsterdam, condemned the ship as a lawful prize. The ship was re-named the Stettin of Embden and sold to Defenders Hillary Bauerman and Son, who were subjects of Prussia. Subsequently, the ship sailed to the Firth of Forth, where it was seized and taken to Leith on suspicion of being enemy property. When Thomas Wake learned of the ship’s capture, he sought to reclaim it, arguing that the commissary had lacked jurisdiction to issue the condemnation order. Hillary Bauerman and Son argued that ownership of the ship was legally transferred by possession, and that in any case, the condemnation order was sufficient. |
| Yelton and others v. Smith and others |
1801
|
Adjudication, Insurance, Prize, Debt, Arrestment, Sequestration |
The ship "Diana," which was owned by the pursuers, recaptured an English ship called the "Lady Bruce" from a French privateer. The pursuers purchased an insurance policy of £400 on the salvage. However, the Diana lacked any letters of marque giving it the legal right to seize property from the enemy. After the "Lady Bruce" was recaptured by a Dutch schooner, the pursuers sued the underwriters, the defenders, for the amount due under their policy. The defenders argued that because the Diana had no letters of marque, the pursuers never possessed an insurable interest in the Lady Bruce; therefore, according to the defenders, the insurance policy was void. |
