| U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maryland | Nov 15, 1847
1. In order to entitle the plaintiff to recover, the vessel must have been seaworthy at the time the policy attached; that is to say, seaworthy for such a voyage as she was engaged in at the time of the disaster; and have been lost by reason of one of the perils insured against in the policy.
2. But she is presumed to have been seaworthy at that time, unless the jury find the contrary is proved by the testimony; and the burden of the proof of unseaworthiness is on the defendant.
3. If, when the vessel touched at Nassau, the leak, mentioned in the testimony, was such, that a prudent and discreet master, of competent skill and judgment, would have deemed it necessary to examine and repair the leak before proceeding on the voyage, and the jury find that the disaster was occasioned by his omission to do so, and would not otherwise have happened, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
4. But if the jury find that, from the character of the leak, a master of competent skill and judgment might reasonably have supposed that she was seaworthy for the voyage in which she was then engaged, notwithstanding the leak, and on that account omitted to examine and repair, then such omission to examine or repair the vessel at Nassau, is no bar to the recovery of the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff.