Caze & Richaud v. Baltimore Insurance Company,
11 U.S. 358 (1813)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Caze & Richaud v. Baltimore Insurance Company, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 358 358 (1813)

Caze & Richaud v. Baltimore Insurance Company

11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 358


The underwriters upon a cargo are not liable for freight, pro rata itineris to the owner of the vessel who is also owner of the cargo insured in a case where the vessel and cargo were captured, the cargo abandoned to the underwriters as a total loss and by them accepted, the loss paid, the cargo condemned, restored upon appeal, and the proceeds of the cargo paid over to the underwriters.

Freight pro rata itineris is not due unless the owner of the cargo voluntarily agrees to receive it at a place short of its ultimate destination.

The existence of a lien on a cargo for freight does not vary the legal responsibility of the underwriter on the cargo after abandonment.

Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland in an action of indebitatus assumpsit for freight

Page 11 U. S. 359

of goods by the ship Hamilton from Bordeaux to Halifax.

In the court below, a case was agreed by the parties which was in substance as follows.

On 28 July, 1805, Mr. John Ducorneau, of Bordeaux, the agent of the plaintiffs, shipped for them there, on their account on board the ship Hamilton, of which they were owners, a cargo of the value of $22,986 on a voyage from Bordeaux to New York, where the plaintiffs resided. On the voyage she was captured by a British vessel of war and carried into Halifax, where the ship and cargo were condemned. Within due time after the plaintiffs heard of the capture, they abandoned as for a total loss to the defendants who accepted the abandonment and paid the amount insured.

From the sentence of condemnation in the vice-admiralty court as to the vessel and cargo, but not as to freight, there was an appeal, upon which the sentence was reversed and the proceeds of the vessel and cargo were restored. The proceeds of the cargo were paid over to the underwriters, but the sum they received was less than the sum they had paid upon the policy.

The question, upon this case was whether the plaintiffs, who were owners of both vessel and cargo, were entitled to recover from the underwriters upon the cargo freight from Bordeaux to Halifax.

Page 11 U. S. 361

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.