This case was about the purchase of an insurance policy by a broker. Robert Hunter and Company, in Saltcoats, asked James Hamilton, an insurance broker in Glasgow, to procure an insurance policy for a ship sailing to the Firth of Clyde. Hunter and Co. specified that the policy should not cost more than eight guineas per cent. However, Hamilton was unable to find insurance at this price, so he procured a policy at nine guineas per cent, paying the difference himself. He then wrote Hunter and Co. to inform them of the action he had taken. In the letter, Hamilton stated that if Hunter and Co. did not approve of the policy, they could have it vacated by sending a return letter "in course of post." Hunter and Co. wrote back two days later to reject the policy; in the meantime, the ship in question had arrived safely. Hamilton sued for payment of the premium. In response, Hunter and Co. argued that their rejection of the policy was valid.
Documents in this case (3)
- Petition Hamilton, 18 Jul 1782July 18, 1782 Petition of William Craig asking the Court to alter its recent interlocutor
- James Hamilton, Senior v. Robert Hunter and Company — Answers, 31 Jul 1782July 31, 1782 Petition of Mr. James Hamilton asking the Court to permit his claim for eight guineas on an insurance policy executed at nine guineas per cent.
- Hamilton v. Hunter and Co. — Petition, 9 Aug 1782August 9, 1782 Petition of James Hamilton asking the Court to alter its interlocutor against the defenders, who refused to pay the premium of eight guineas per cent. as ordered
People & places in this case
People involved
- James Hamilton Sr. — Pursuer
- Robert Hunter and Company — Defender
- William Craig, Lord Craig — Advocate for Pursuer
- Alexander Hamilton, of Grange — Advocate for Defender
- Robert MacQueen, Lord Braxfield — Lord Ordinary
- Captain John Johnston — Named in case documents
Where this case took place
This case was about the purchase of an insurance policy by a broker. Robert Hunter and Company, in Saltcoats, asked James Hamilton, an insurance broker in Glasgow, to procure an insurance policy for a ship sailing to the Firth of Clyde. Hunter and Co. specified that the policy should not cost more than eight guineas per cent. However, Hamilton was unable to find insurance at this price, so he procured a policy at nine guineas per cent, paying the difference himself. He then wrote Hunter and Co. to inform them of the action he had taken. In the letter, Hamilton stated that if Hunter and Co. did not approve of the policy, they could have it vacated by sending a return letter "in course of post." Hunter and Co. wrote back two days later to reject the policy; in the meantime, the ship in question had arrived safely. Hamilton sued for payment of the premium. In response, Hunter and Co. argued that their rejection of the policy was valid.
