Mauran v. Insurance Co.

vessel by the naval forces of the so-called Confederate States was a capture within the warranty of the assured in the margin of the policy ? If it was, then the loss is not one of the perils insured against, as the assured, in express terms, had assumed it upon himself.

A capture, as defined by some of the most eminent writers on insurance within the policy, is a taking by the enemy of vessel or cargo as prize, in time of open war, or, by way of reprisal, with intent to deprive the owner of it. This was probably the primary or original idea attached .to the term in these instruments. Losses of ships and cargo engaged in commerce by the public enemy were the most to be apprehended and provided against. But usage, and the course of decisions by the courts, have very much widened this meaning, and it now may embrace the taking of a neutral ship and cargo by a belligerent jure belli; also, the taking forcibly by a friendly power, in time of peace, and even by the government itself to which the assured belongs.^[8]

Capture is deemed lawful when made by a declared enemy, lawfully commissioned, and according to the laws of war, and uulawful wheu made otherwise; but, whether lawful or unlawful, the underwriter is liable;, the words of the policy being broad enough, and intended to be broad enough, to include every species, of capture to which ships or cargo, at sea, may be exposed. Any other rule would furnish but a very imperfect indemnity to the assured if we regard either the character of these seizures and the irregularities attending them, or the trouble, expense, and delay consequent up>on the duty or burden of proving in a court of justice the unlawfulness of the act. It is never, therefore, a question, between the insurer and the insured whether the capture be lawful or not. The recent case of Powell v. Hyde^[4] is very decisive on this point. In that case a British ship passing

down the Danube was fired upon from a Russian fort and sunk. A war existed between Russia and Turkey, but none betweeu the former and Great Britain. The policy of insurance in that ease contained the warranty of the assured “ free from capture, seizure,” &c., upon which the underwriters relied, as here, for a defence. In answer to this it was urged for the assured that these words in the warranty related to a lawful capture or seizure, by a party having authority to make it, and that, inasmuch as the capture was in open violation of law and wholly illegal, it was not within the warranty, and the underwriters were, therefore, liable. But the court held otherwise, and determined that this term in the warranty was not confined to lawful capture, but included any capture, in consequence of which the ship was lost to the insured. This same principle was again deliberately asserted by the court in Kleinworth v. Shepherd.^[8] The same question had been decided many years before by Lord Mansfield in Berens v. Rucker,^[4] in which he held the insurer liable in case of an illegal capture of a neutral vessel by an English privateer. Chancellor Kent states the rule as follows: “Every species of capture, whether lawful or unlawful, and whether by friends or enemies, is also a loss within the policy.”^[5] As kindred to this rule is another, that the insurer is liable for a loss by capture, whether the property in the thing insured be changed by the capture or not. In every case of an illegal capture the property is not changed, yet as between, the insurer and the insured, the effect is the same as in case of a capture by an enemy in open war.

In the case of a capture under a commission from au organized government, against an enemy, jure belli, to bring the capture within the policy, it is not necessary that the commission should issue from a perfectly lawful govei’uruent any more than that the capture itself should be lawful. The principle is the same. An illustration will be found in the

war between Spain and her revolted colonies in South America, which continued for many years. Our government was the first to recognize their independence, "which was in 1822; but even down till this event, from the time the revolt had reached the dimensions of a civil war, the government had recognized the war, and conceded equal belligerent fights to the respective parties; and the capture of the vessels of Spain by a commander under a commission by one of the colonies in the exercise of this right, was recognized as legal as if it had occurred in open public war, and, as- a matter of course, would have been within the marginal warranty clause of the insured in a policy of insurance. Indeed it has been so held. It will be observed that at this time these colonies, had not achieved their independence; they were yet in the heat of the conflict; nor had they been recognized by any of the established governments on either continent as belonging to the family of nations. In this connection it will not be inappropriate to refer to the case of United States v. Palmer,^[8] which was an indictment against the defendant for piracy in the capture of a Spanish vessel under a commission from one of these colonies, and which he set up as a defence. One of the questions certified from the circuit was, whether the seal annexed to the commission purporting to be a public seal used by persons exercising the powers of government in a foreign colony, which had revolted from its allegiance and declared itself independent, but had never been acknowledged as such by the United States, was admissible in a court of the United States as proof of its legal existence with or without proof of its genuineness. The court held that the seal of such unacknowledged government could not be permitted to prove itself, but that it might be proved by such testimony as the nature of the case would admit. The defendant was permitted, also, to prove that he was employed in the service of the colony at the time of making the capture, and which, it was agreed, would constitute a defence to the in

dictment for piracy. The proof became necessary on account of the obscurity and unknown condition of this incipient state.

Another illustration will be found in a capture by a cle facto government, which government is defined to be one in possession of the supreme or sovereign power, but without right — a government by usurpation, founded perhaps in crime, and in the violation of every principle of international or municipal law, and of right and justice; yet, while it is thus organized, and in the exercise and control of the sovereign authority, there can be no question between the insurer and the insured as to the lawfulness of the government under whose commission the capture has been made. If any presumption could properly be indulged as to the perils against which the insured would most desire to protect himself, it might well be captures by these violent and irregularly constructed nationalities. The court in the case of Nesbitt v. Lushington,^[8] fitly described the character of the government contemplated in the clause respecting the restraints, &c., of kings, princes, or people, namely : “ the ruling power of the country,” “ the supreme power,” “ the power of the country, whatever it might be,” — not necessarily a lawful power or government, or one that had been adopted into the family of nations.

Now, applying these principles to the case before us, it will be seen that the question is not w'hether this so-called Confederate government, under whose authority the capture was made, was a lawful government, but whether or not it was a government in fact, that is, one in the possession of the supreme power of the district of country over -which its jurisdiction extended? We agree that all the'proceedings of these eleven states, either severally or in conjunction, by means of which the existing governments were overthrown, and new governments erected in their stead, were wholly illegal and void, and that they remained after the attempted separation and change of government, in judgment of law,

eminence, and which have arrived at the same conclusion, and to which we refer as rendering further examination unnecessary.^[8]

Judgment affirmed.

Dissenting, the CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice SWAYNE.

Note. At the same time with the preceding were argued and adjudged four other eases by the same plaintiff against other insurance companies, all four being adjudged in the same way as the one above reported. In two of them the policies and warranty were in the same language as in that case. In two others there was a difference in the marginal warranty of the insured in this, that while he warranted free from loss or expense by capture, &c., “ordinary piracy” was excepted, so that if the loss was on account of a capture or seizure by pirates, the insured would have been entitled to recover. But Nelson, J., giving the judgment of the court, observed that as the court had arrived at the conclusion that the capture of the vessel was under the authority of a quasi government, or government in fact (the ruling power of the country at that time], it was to be held to be within the warranty or exception in the marginal clause. Dissenting, the Chief Justice and Swayne, J.