1805. I cannot see, that it will be materially disadvantageous to commerce, to settle this question, in either way, contended for in this cause. It is of most importance, that the point should be clearly decided and settled in one or the other way; that merchants may know, and accommodate their affairs to the decision. This court can, at least, commence the means of final decision. I believe with Professor Smith, in his "Wealth of Nations,” cited in this cause, that distributing the burthen of losses, among the greater number, to prevent the ruin of a few, or of an individual, is most conformable to the principles of insurance, and most conducive to the general prosperity of commerce. The wisdom and experience of the British nation, grown out of their more modern and extended state of commerce, have given additional value to this opinion. Whatever respect (and it is not slight), I may entertain for the laws of other nations, I deem myself bound to follow, what was the established law and custom of merchants in England, at the time of our becoming an independent nation: not because it was the law merely of that country; but because, it was, and is, our law. There is sufficient evidence in my mind, in the cases produced out of the British books, to this point, to satisfy me of the law and custom there established on this question. I, therefore, conclude, according to the case of Newby v. Reed, (Sir Wm. Bl. Rep. 410.) that "the insured may recover the whole sum; and leave the in66 surer to recover a rateable proportion, from other insurers, on "a double policy," and the insured may elect, which set of insurers, or which of the individuals, he will sue, for the amount of actual loss; beyond which he cannot recover, as he can have but one satisfaction. On the point stated, (the details of which merchants can best adjust) I am of opinion, that the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff, a contribution, upon the loss paid by him, as stated. This contribution must be made by all the insurers, on all the policies rateably, as their respective subscriptions bear a proportion to each other, and all of them to the actual loss. The defendant of course, must pay to the plaintiff his rateable proportion, on these principles, according to the amount of his subscription. SINCE Willing et al. versus The United States. INCE this case was reported, (ante. p. 374), at February term 1807, the Supreme Court, upon argument, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. INDEX. A ADMINISTRATOR. A creditor cannot maintain an action ASSUMPSIT lies against an admi- scribed the conditions of the trust. 224 nistrator for a distributive share of ADMIRALTY. 450 An action may be maintained here by A surviving partner cannot maintain nant. 436 In an action of covenant in a deed, ACTUAL SETTLER. ALIEN. An action cannot be maintained for 111. 130 AGREEMENT. 441 353 A parol agreement will not give a A report of referees cannot give a right 152 250 Illegal contracts cannot be enforced 269 See Illegal Contract. AMENDMENTS. 12, 13. 25. 267 ASSIGNEE. Action of indeb, ass. lies for the claim- Where allowed. Infancy may be given in evidence on 130 The validity of Blunston's licences for Assumpsit by a bastard against the ad- taking up lands, under the proprietary. 130 Special assumpsit to guarantee the 133. 226 Persons claiming distributive shares ATTACHMENTS. 147 A promissory note negotiated in New 47 C CAST-AWAY. CERTIORARI. See Practice. CHALLENGE. 121 The right of challenging 35 jurors 279 Where the garnishee is not entitled to AUCTIONEERS. 291 common law Courts of Pennsylvania. how fara subsequent execution shall pre- See Covenant. Evidence. Action. EVICTION. FORFEITURE. SOB See Confiscation. Georgia. 28 Tenant by the curtesy initiate has The charter of incorporation must be 421 In an action of covenant, after eviction EXECUTION. Goods taken in execution permitted to FRAUD. Assignments. FREIGHT. See Insurance. G 168 0 |