Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD SAVILLE 1. This case is concerned with a marine insurance policy on cargo dated 5 July 2005, which incorporated the Institute Cargo Clauses (A) of 1 January 1982. The policy covered "all risks of loss or damage to the subject-matter insured except as provided in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7" Clause 4.4 excluded "loss, damage or expense caused by inherent vice or nature of the subject matter insured" from the cover provided by the policy. 2. The subject matter of the insurance was the oil rig "Cendor MOPU." This oil rig had been laid up in Galveston, Texas. In May 2005 it was purchased by the respondents (the assured under the policy) for conversion into a mobile offshore production unit ("MOPU") for use in the Cendor Field off the coast of East Malaysia. The insurance covered the loading, carriage and discharge of the oil rig on the towed barge "Boabarge 8" from Galveston in the United States to Lumut in Malaysia. The total sum covered was Malaysian Ringgits 38m (US$10m) with a deducti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Rice - 17 U.S. 246 (1819) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Rice, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 246 246 (1819) United States v. Rice 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 246 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus By the conquest and military occupation of a portion of the territory of the United States by a public enemy, that portion is to be deemed a foreign country so far as respects our revenue laws. Goods imported into it are not imported into the United States, and are subject to such duties only as the conqueror may impose. The subsequent evacuation of the conquered territory by the enemy, and resumption of authority by the United States cannot change the character of past transactions. The jus postliminii does not apply to the case, and goods previously imported do not become liable to pay duties to the United States by the resumption of their sovereignty over the conquered territory. Page 17 U. S. 247 This was an action of debt brought by the United States agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decatur v. Paulding - 39 U.S. 497 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Decatur v. Paulding, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 497 497 (1840) Decatur v. Paulding 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 497 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus On 3 March, 1837, Congress passed an act giving to the widow of any officer who had died in the naval service of the United States authority to receive, out of the navy pension fund, half the monthly pay to which the deceased officer would have been entitled under the acts regulating the pay in the navy in force on 1 January, 1835. On the same day, a resolution was adopted by Congress giving to Mrs. Decatur widow of Captain Stephen Decatur, a pension for five years out of the navy pension fund, and in conformity with the act of 30 June, 1834, and the arrearages of the half-pay of a post captain, from the death of Commodore Decatur to the 30 June, 1834, the arrearages to be vested in trust for her by the Secretary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. The Amistad - 40 U.S. 518 (1841) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. The Amistad, 40 U.S. 15 Pet. 518 518 (1841) United States v. The Amistad 40 U.S. (15 Pet.) 518 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Syllabus The Spanish schooner Amistad, on the 27th day of June, 1839, cleared out from Havana, in Cuba, for Puerto Principe, in the same island, having on board Captain Ferrer, and Ruiz and Montez, Spanish subjects. Captain Ferrer had on board Antonio, a slave; Ruiz had forty-nine negroes; Montez had four negroes, which were claimed by them as slaves, and stated to be their property in passports or documents signed by the Governor General of Cuba. In fact, these African negroes had been, a very short time before they were put on board the Amistad, brought into Cuba by Spanish slave traders in direct contravention of the treaties between Spain and Great Britain and in violation of the laws of Spain. On the voyage o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Buchanan - 49 U.S. 83 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Buchanan, 49 U.S. 8 How. 83 83 (1850) United States v. Buchanan 49 U.S. (8 How.) 83 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Commissions for drawing bills of exchange were not usually allowed to permanent pursers in the navy, and on 10 November, 1826, commissions for such services to commanders of squadrons and officers of any grade were expressly abolished. A custom cannot be set up against a settled rule, nor can it ever be binding unless it be ancient, reasonable, generally known, and certain. There are two books for the government of the officers of the navy, usually known as the "Blue Book" and the "Red Book." The "Red Book," although later in date, did not repeal the "Blue Book," except in some few specified particulars. The duty of paying mechanics and laborers at the navy yards was imposed, by the Blue Book, upon pursers who were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex Parte Reed - 100 U.S. 13 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Reed, 100 U.S. 13 (1879) Ex Parte Reed 100 U.S. 13 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Syllabus 1. The regularly appointed clerk of a paymaster in the navy is a "person in the naval service of the United States" within the meaning of art. 14, sec. 1624, of the Revised Statutes, and, for a violation of its provisions, is subject to be tried, convicted, and sentenced by a naval general court-martial. 2. The "regulations for the administration of law and justice" in that service, established by the Secretary of the Navy with the approval of the President, have the force of law. 3. Where, pursuant to such regulations, a general court-martial is duly ordered, the officer clothed with the revising authority may, before it is dissolved, direct it to reconsider its proceedings and sentence, and if it, upon being reconvened, renders a sentence which he approves, such sentence cannot be collaterally impeached for mere err...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Clarkson v. Stevens - 106 U.S. 505 (1882) U.S. Supreme Court Clarkson v. Stevens, 106 U.S. 505 (1882) Clarkson v. Stevens Decided November 27, 1882 106 U.S. 505 ERROR TO THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Syllabus 1. Where, by a contract for the construction of a ship, the builder is to furnish the requisite labor and materials and to receive therefor a sum payable in installments as the work progresses, this Court will not enforce any arbitrary rule of construction in determining the question whether the title remains in the builder until the ship is delivered or ready for delivery, or whether the property in so much of her as on the payment of any installment is completed passes to the other party, but it will carry into effect the intent of the parties, to be gathered from the terms of the contract and the circumstances attending the transaction. 2. Being thereunto authorized, the Secretary of the Navy entered into a contract with S. whereby the latter coven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wales v. Whitney - 114 U.S. 564 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564 (1885) Wales v. Whitney Argued April 21-22, 1885 Decided May 4, 1885 114 U.S. 564 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The Act of March 3, 1885, Laws 2d Sess. 48th Cong, c. 353, page 437, restored to this Court appellate jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases over decisions of circuit court of the United States and decisions of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Neither this Court nor the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia has appellate jurisdiction over a naval court-martial nor over offenses which it has power to try. In order to make a case for habeas corpus, there must be actual confinement or the present means of enforcing it; mere moral restraint is not sufficient. The appellant, a medical director in the Navy, was, under Rev.Stat. 419, 420, 421, 426, 1471, appointed and commissioned Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Perkins - 116 U.S. 483 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483 (1886) United States v. Perkins Submitted January 6, 1886 Decided January 25, 1886 116 U.S. 483 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus When Congress by law vests the appointment of inferior officers in the heads of departments, it may limit and restrict the power of removal as it deems best for the public interests. A naval cadet-engineer, not found deficient at examination, not dismissed for misconduct under the provisions of Rev.Stat. 1525 or upon and in pursuance of a sentence of a court-martial, but honorably discharged by the Secretary of the Navy against his will remains in the service notwithstanding the discharge, and is entitled to recover in the Court of Claims the pay attached to the position. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the Court. The object of this suit was to recover $100 as the salary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mullan v. United States - 140 U.S. 240 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Mullan v. United States, 140 U.S. 240 (1891) Mullan v. United States No. 330 Argued and submitted April 21, 1891 Decided May 11, 1891 140 U.S. 240 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus When the commander-in-chief of a squadron, not in the waters of the United States, convenes a court martial to try an officer attached to the squadron, more than half of whose members are juniors in rank to the accused, the courts of the United States will assume, when his action in this respect is attacked collaterally, and nothing to the contrary appears on the face of the order convening the court, that he properly exercised his discretion, and that the trial of the accused by such a court could not be avoided without inconvenience to the service. The President has power by and with the advice and consent of the Senate to displace an officer in the army or navy by the appointment of another person in his place. Blake v. U...
Tag this Judgment!