p. 25States not east of Boston, with liberty to use Hampton Roads for orders, the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Bakér’s Island loading, $5,000, upon the body, tackle, &c., of the good ship ‘.Minnehaha.’ ”
The ship sailed, in ballast from Honolulu the 7th of November ,1867, and arrived near Baker’s Island on the afternoon of the twentieth day of that month. ' She came to her mooring near the island in safety; shortly after which a heavy gale and heavy surf arose, and continued with violence until the 3d of- December, when the ship parted her moorings, and was totally wrecked and lost. At no time after her arrival at that island was it possible to discharge ballast or receive cargo, or commence the process of loading, or even the preparation for loading.'
Proof of loss and of interest and adjustment was duly presented to the company, and payment demanded therefor and refused.
On May 20, 1872, Reed exhibited his libel in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland against said company. That court upon hearing dismissed the causé ; and the Circuit Court having affirmed the decree, the'-libellant brought the case here.
The Statute of Limitations in force in Maryland provides as follows: —
“ All actions of account, actions of assumpsit or on the casé, actions of debt on simple contract, or for rent in arréárs, detinue, and replevin, all actions for trespass for injuries to real ór persónal property, shall be commenced or suéd within three years from time the-cause of action accrues.”
Mr. Frederick E. Bryant and Mr. Charles B. Goodrich for the appellant.
1. .The policy covers the voyage- during which the loss occurred, and the appellant is prima facie entitled to recover the amount of such loss. The vessel was insured from Honplulu, via Baker’s Island, to-her port of discharge; and the intention ■of the assured and insurer that she- should stop there is thus clearly manifested.
2. The exeeptftig clause, “ the risk to be suspended while the vessel is at Baker’s Island loading,” has no bearing upon
p. 2794 U. S. 506 ;
Bingham v.
Wilkins, Crabbe, 50;
Brown v.'
Jones, 2 Gall. 477 ;
Willard v.
Dorr, 3 Mas. 95 ;
The Key West, 14 Wall. 653 .
Mr. John H. Thomas, contra.
Tbe letter of Johnson & Higgins to the . agent of the appellee •was intended to produce, ¡and did produce, on his mind the impression that the New York .companies had excluded the ■ risks of Baker’s Island- by suspensions coextensive with .that mentioned in the application. . If they had not, the policy was obtained by misrepresentation, and is null and void. 1 Rarsons, Mar. Ins. 409, 410.
The policy without the suspending clause would not have covered the vessel at Baker’s Island, but only during her voyage' via that island. When property is intended to be covered by. amarine insurance at a place, not constituting a part of-the voyage, apt and express words adequate to that purpose are always used; as, for example, “ at and from,” “ to, at, and from,” “ to, while there, and thence,” “ with liberty to touch at,”. “with liberty to touch and stop at,” “with -liberty to-touch and ' load at,” &c. 1- Phillips, Ins., sects. 928, 1005, 1014; 2 Parsons, Mar. Ins. 16, and notes; Park, Ins. 388; Barber V. Fleming, 5 Law Rep. Q. B.- 59; Stitts v. Wardell, 2 Esp. 610; Sheriff y. Potts, 5 id. 96; United States v. The Paul Shearman, 1 Pet. C. Ct. 98-104; Gross v. Shuttliffe, 2 Bay (S. 0,), 220.
. The words “ via Baker’s Island ” are descriptive of the voyage. Without them the vessel would have- been obliged to.-pursue the accustomed route. Passing that island, if unusual and unnecessary, and, a fortiori, stopping, loading, or even touching there, would have been a deviation, causing a forfeiture of the policy. The words suspending the. risk, “ while at Baker’s Island loading,” were introduced to limit and not enlarge 'the operation of the instrument. If the intention had been to suspend the risk “while loading,” the collocation: of - them would have been “while loading at Baker’s Island.” Place is the controlling idea of the words as used; “ loading ” is subordinate. It indicates the purpose of -being at the place, not the terms of the risk. Devouz v. J'Anson, 5 Biñg. N. C. ■ 539.
If the construction here contended for is not the natural one,
p. 29This suit, when brought, was barred by the Statute of Limitatiohs~of~Maryland. 1 Md. Code, p.’395.
In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, courts of equity adopt the period of limitation prescribed for courts of law. -
Lewis v. Marshall, 5 Pet. 470 ;
Peyton v.
-Smith, id. 485 ;
Miller v.
McIntyre, 6 id.
61Panic of United States -r^Daniel, 12 id. 56;
Blmendorff v.
Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152 ;
Thomas v.
Harries's Heirs, id. 149, 150;
Burke v.
Smith, 16 Wall.|401;
Hirtle v.
Schwartz, 3 Md. 383 ;
Teackle v.
Cfibson, 8 id.' 87;
Knight v.
Brown, T4 id. 7;
Dugan v.-
Cfittings, 3 Gill (Md.), Í61.
Admiralty courts 'áre chancery courts of the sea, and áre governed by chancery rules in the administration of their remedies. Packard v. Sloop Louisa, 2 Woodb. & M. 60’; Brig Sarah Ann, 2 Sumn. 212 ; Pittman v. Hooper, 3 id. 305 ; Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mas. 163 ; Joy v. Allen, 2 W6odb. & M. 304;
The Key City, 14 Wall. 653 , was a proceeding in- rém exclu-, sively of admiralty jurisdiction: The principles there enunciated are expressly confined, to such a case. It establishes nothing at variance with what is here contended for. In a matter solely within their cognizance, courts of equity do' 'not inflexibly adhere to the common-law period of limitation.' Wisner v. Barnet, 4 Wash. 640 ; Kane v. Blúodgood, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 90. Nor do the admiralty courts; but that doctrine has no application to this suit.
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a cause of contract, civil and maritime, commenced by a libel in personam by Samuel G. Reed, the appellant, against the Merchants’ Mutual Insurance Company of Baltimore, the appellee, to recover 15,000, the-amount insured by the latter on the ship “ Minnehaha,” belonging to the libellant. The policy was dated the fourteenth day of January, 1868, and insured said ship in the amount named, lost or not lost, at' and from Honolulu, via Baker’s Island, to a port of discharge in the United States not east of- Boston, with liberty to use Hampton Roads orders, “ the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Baker’s Island loading.” The ship was lost at Baker’s Island, where she had gone for the purpose of loading,, on the third day of December, 1868. • The defence was that
p. 30the loss occurred whilst the risk was suspended under the clause above quoted; also laches by reason of the delay in commencing suit, being more than four years after the cause of action accrued. •
This case, upon .the merits, depends solely upon the construction to be given to the clause in the policy before referred to,. namely, “ the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Baker’s ..'Island loading; ” and turns upon the point whether the clause means, while'the vessel is at'Baker’sTsland/or thepurpose of loading, or while it is at said island actually loading. If it means the former, the company, is not liable; if the latter, it is liable.
A strictly literal construction would favor the latter meaning. But a rigid adherence to the .letter often leads to erroneous results, and misinterprets the meaning of the parties. That such was not the sense in which the parties in this case used the words in question is • manifest, we think, from all the circumstances of the case. Although a written agreement cannot be varied (by-addition or subtraction) by proof of the circumstances out of which it grew arid which surrounded its adoption, yet such circumstances are constantly resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the subject-matter and the stand-point of the parties in relation thereto.. "Without some knowledge, derived from such evidence, it would be impossible to comprehend the meaning of an instrument, or the effect to be given to the words of which it is ctimposed. This preliminary knowlédge is" as indispensable as that of the language in which the instrument is written. A reference to, the actual 'Condition of things at the time, as they appeared to the parties themselves, is often necessary to prevent the court In- construing their language, from falling into mistakes arid even absurdities. On this subject Professor Greenleaf says: “The writing, it is true, may be • read by. the light of surrounding circumstances;' in order more perfectly to understand the intent and meaning of the parties; but, as they have constituted the writing.to be tlie only outward and visible expression of. their meaning, no other wqrds "are to be added to it, or substituted in its stead. The ditty .of the courts in such cases is to ascertain, not what the parties may have- secretly intended, as contradistinguished from what their words express, but what is the meaning of the
p. 31words they have used.” 1 Greenl. Evid., sect. 277. Mr. Taylor uses language of similar purport. He-says: “Whatever be the nature of the document under review, the object is to discover the intention of the writer as evidenced by the words he has used; and, in order to do this, the judge must put himself in the writer’s place, and then see how the terms, of .the instrument affect .the property or subject-matter. With this view, extrinsic evidence must be admissible of jail the' circumstances surrounding the author of the-instrument.” Taylor, Evid., sect. 1082. Again he says: “ It may, and indeed it often does, happen, that, in consequence of the surrounding circumstances being proved in evidence, the courts give to ’ the instrument, thus relatively considered, an interpretation very different from what it would have received, had it been considered in the abstract. But this is only just and proper; since the effect of the evidence is not to vary the language employed, but merely to explain- the sense in which the writer understood it.” Id., sect. 1085. See
Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1 , and remarks of Mr. Justice Strong in
Maryland v.
Railroad Company, 22 id. 105 .
The principles announced in these quotations, with the limitations and cautions with which they are accompanied, seem to us indisputable; and, availing ourselves of the light of the surrounding circumstances in this case, as they appeared, or must be supposed to have appeared, to the parties at the time of making the contract, we cannot doubt that the meaning of the words which are presented for our consideration is that the risk was to be suspended while the vessel was at Baker’s Island for the purpose of loading, whether actually engaged in the process of loading or not. Taking' this clause-in absolute literality, the risk would only be suspended when .loading was actually going on. It would revive at any time after the loading was commenced, if it had to be discontinued by stress of weather, or any other cause. It would even revive at night, when the men were not at work; --.This Could not have been-the intent'of the parties. It could not have been whiit they meant by the words “while vessel is at Baker’s Island loading.” It wás.the place, its exposure, its unfavorable moor-age, which the insurance companies had to fear, and the risk
p. 32of which they desired to avoid. The whole reason of the tiling and the object in view point to the intent- of protecting 'themselves whilst thé vessel was in that exposed place for the purpose referred to, not merely to protect themselves whilst loading was actually going on. Her visit to the island-was only for the purpose ‘ of loading; as between the contracting parties, she had no right to be there for any other purpose; and, supposing that théy intended that the risk should be suspended whilst she was there for that purpose, it would not be an unnatural, form of expression to say, “ the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Baker’s Island loading.” And we think that no violence is done to the language used, to give it the sense which all the circumstances of the case indicate that it must have had in the minds of the parties.
If we are right in this construction of the contract, there can be no uncertainty as to its effect upon the liability of the underwriters. The loss clearly accrued at a time when, by the terms of .the policy, tlje risk was suspended. The ship sailed in ballast from Honolulu on or about the 7th of November, 1867, and arrived at Baker’s Island on the afternoon of the twentieth day of November, 1867. She came to her mooring in safety, and her sails were furled, shortly after which a -heavy gale and heavy surf arose. The gale and surf continued with violence until the 3d of December, 1867, when the ship parted her moorings,- and was totally wrecked and lost. At no time after her arrival at Baker’s Island was it possible to discharge ballast or-receive cargo or to commence the progress of loading. The violence of the winds, current, and waves, and their adverse course and direction, prevented the ship from slipping her cables and getting to sea, or otherwise escaping the perils that surrounded her.
These facts are indisputable; and they show that, when the loss occurred, the vessel was at Baker’s Island for the purpose of loading. That the process of loading had not actually commenced is of no consequence. The suspension of the risk com.meneed as soon as the vessel arrived át the island and was • safely moored in her proper station for loading.
The appellee, as a further defence, set up laches in bringing suit. The libel was not filed until more than four years had
p. 33elapsed after the cause of action had accrued. The Statute of Limitations of Maryland requires actions of account, assumpsit, on the case, &c., to be brought within three years; and the counsel for the appellee insists that by analogy to this' statute the Admiralty Court, having concurrent jurisdiction with the State courts in this case, should apply the same rule. We had occasion, in the case of
The Key City,
14 Wall. 658 , to explain the principles by which courts of admiralty, are governed when laches in bringing suit is urged as an'exception in cases cognizable therein. - In- view of the construction which we have given to the contract in this case, it-is not necessary to pass upon the precise question now raised. by the appellee.
It is also unnecessary to examine other questions which were mooted on the argument. Decree affirmed.