Supreme Court of Canada
The Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Troop (1896) 26 SCR 5
Date: 1896-02-18
The Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (Defendants)
Appellants
And
Howard D. Troop and John E. Irvine (Plaintiffs)
Respondents.
1895: Oct. 31; 1896: Feb. 18.
Present:—Sir Henry Strong C.J., and Taschereau, Gwynne, King and Girouard JJ.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW BRUNSWICK.
Marine insurance—Voyage policy—“At and from” a port—Construction of policy—Usage.
A ship was insured for a voyage “at and from Sydney to St. John N.B., there and thence,” etc. She went to Sydney for orders and without entering within the limits of the port as defined by statute for fiscal purposes, brought up at or near the mouth of the harbour and having received her orders by signal attempted to put about for St. John, but missed stays and was wrecked. In an action on the policy evidence was given establishing that Sydney was well known as a port of call, that ships going there for orders never entered the harbour, and that the insured vessel was within the port according to a Royal Surveyor’s chart furnished to navigators.
Held, affirming the decision of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, that the words “at and from Sydney” meant at and from the first arrival of the ship; that she was at Sydney within the terms of the policy; and that the policy had attached when she attempted to put about for St. John.
Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick, sustaining the verdict for the plaintiffs at the trial.
The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the above head-note and more fully set out in the judgment of the court.
[Page 6]
Currey Q.C. for the appellant argued that the limits of the port as defined by statute were meant by the policy citing Hunter v. Northern Assurance Co..
Pugsley Q.C. for the respondents referred to Lindsay v. Janson.
The judgment of the court was delivered by:
KING J.—This action is on a policy of marine insurance made on 1st June, 1892, at St. John, N.B., on the ship Minister of Marine—“lost or not lost at and from Sydney, Cape Breton, to St. John, N.B., and thence to a point in the United Kingdom.” The defence is that the policy never attached, either because the vessel never was at the port of Sydney, or because she was never there in a condition of physical safety.
At the time of effecting the insurance the vessel was on a voyage from Fleetwood, England, to Sydney, for orders. On the morning of the 4th June she arrived off Sydney harbour, and had shortened sail expecting orders but was still standing in with a free wind, when she received orders from the signal station at Flat Point to proceed to St. John, N.B. It was then attempted to put her about on her course to St. John, but owing to the vessel being light and with reduced sail, and the wind fresh, she missed stays, and was then wore around, and in the course of this man oeuvre came inside the line of the two headlands, Flat Point and Cranberry Head, at the mouth of the estuary leading to the town of Sydney. She was then proceeding out in the usual course of outward bound vessels when the wind shifted and, again missing stays, she went ashore about three-quarters of a mile inside of Flat Point, and sustained a partial loss.
Upon the evidence before it the court (having power to draw inferences of fact) found that the vessel was at
[Page 7]
the port of Sydney in its commercial sense, the contention for defendants being that the entrance of the port was five or six miles further inland at what are known as the north-west and south-east bars.
The word “port” is not used in the description of the risk, but may be implied in the expression “at and from Sydney.” The term, however, in commercial documents, such as charter-parties and policies of marine insurance, has not a fixed meaning, but is to be considered as used in its popular or commercial sense, i. e., as applying to what would be so understood by ship-owners, shippers and underwriters. Sailing Ship Garston Co. v. Hickie; Hunter v. Northern Marine Ins. Co.. In the latter case Lord Herschell says:
In the absence of any common understanding (as to the limits of a particular port) how is the question to be determined? It appears to me that you must then consider what are commonly understood to be the characteristics of a port, and what are in general the tests for determining its limits, and apply the conclusions arrived at to the particular case. A port is a place where a vessel can lie in a position of more or less shelter from the elements with a view to the loading or discharge of cargo. The natural configuration of the land is therefore often a most important element in determining what are the limits of a port. All the waters within given boundaries which possess the common character of safety and protection would be generally admitted to be within its ambit. Where, however, a port is one of several situate on the same river, it is obvious that the natural configuration of the land is not of the same importance and does not afford the same guidance.
Further, it seems reasonable that where there is a known and recognized user of protected waters for purposes of security for a known commercial purpose other than for the loading and discharge of cargoes, the limits of a port may be considered (according to the subject matter of the contract and subject to the whole facts of the case,) as intended to be extended to include such protected waters. In other words the parties may be deemed to have contracted with reference to such user
[Page 8]
From its geographical position at the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the nearest port to Europe on the Atlantic coast of America, Sydney is a recognized port of call, and the fact may be assumed to have been known to defendants.
Then as to the configuration of the land, the two headlands, Flat Point and Cranberry Head, are (as already stated) at the mouth of the estuary which leads to the town of Sydney, Flat Point on the south-east and Cranberry Head on the north-west. At the mouth the width is about three miles, but it soon narrows and preserves a mean breadth of about one and a half miles for a distance of five or six miles, when by the projection of the north-west and south-east bars it is reduced to less than a mile. Passing these it widens again and divides into two branches called the north-west and south-west arms. The town of North Sydney is on the north-west arm just inside of the north-west bar. The town of Sydney is on the south side of the south-west arm about four or five miles inland from the bar. The port of North Sydney as defined for revenue purposes embraces the north-west arm and is limited towards the sea by the line of the north-west and southeast bars. For revenue purposes the port of Sydney embraces the south-west arm and extends to a line drawn from Point Edward, the tongue of land dividing the two arms, to the south-west bar. All the wharves are inside these lines and the lading and unlading of goods is carried on there.
A chart of Sydney harbour published in London according to Act of Parliament at the Hydro-graphic office of the Admiralty was in evidence. This chart was from surveys of Capt. Bayfield, R.N., and was first published in 1851, and was stated by witnesses on both sides to be authoritative and in general use. In this, Sydney harbour is shown to extend to
[Page 9]
the headlands. In an illustration upon the face of the chart representing the entrance of the harbour, i.e., its gate or beginning, as it appears from a vessel approaching it, Mat Point lighthouse is shown bearing west-south-west one mile, thus clearly representing that point as at the south-easterly entrance to the harbour.
When vessels are bound to Sydney for orders they never enter the port as defined for fiscal purposes. One of the defendants’ witnesses says that it “would be taking money out of the owner’s pockets by doing so.” Accordingly such vessels are brought to anchor (where they require to anchor) at different points outside the limits of the statutory port. Usually they come in near the bars, both as being more protected and as giving better facility for communication with the shore.
Mr. Smith, a witness for defendant, a commission merchant, ship broker and insurance agent, residing at Sydney, was of opinion that the port extended only to the bars. As to the practice of vessels visiting the port for orders, he says that
they come in and anchor at various points in the harbour for the purpose of receiving orders between a point extending from Low (Flat) Point to Cranberry Head and the north bar * * Whether a vessel would come to anchor up near the north bar or out close to a line between Flat Point and Cranberry Head, would depend very much on weather and circumstances * * the farther she comes the safer she is.
Question by the court: Independently of the statutes where provision is made fixing the limits of the harbour for Customs purposes, where would you say the harbour would begin and end? Ans. I think there is a good bit of harbour outside of the line of the north bar.
Andrew Kenny, a witness for plaintiffs, a shipmaster, says that the two points forming the entrance to the harbour are Cranberry Head and Low Point, and that all the water inside these bounds is known among
[Page 10]
maritime men as Sydney harbour; that he has been there six times and always anchored outside the bars.
John McDonald, a witness for defendant, and a master mariner, residing at Sydney, says that
if he was anywhere inside the capes he would consider that he was in the entrance to the harbour * * For Custom-house purposes I had to go inside the bars, but in calling for orders the pilot has never taken me to the buoys. I anchored her always outside the buoys until I got my orders. If I was ordered to load there, of course I would come inside and have to pay my tonnage; if I was not, I would get my orders and go outside without paying any dues, only the pilotage.
Q. Whereabouts do you anchor outside these bars?—A. It depends on the number of ships in the roadstead from the buoys out. If I was beating in the harbour with a moderate westerly wind blowing, I would not hesitate to anchor anywhere inside the capes, but not to lay long. Q. How far inside the capes?—A. Well, even off the capes here * * I have seen them anchor all the way out pretty near to Cranberry Head, just according to the number of ships in the roadstead.
And on cross-examination:
Q. I understand you that for Customs purposes the legislature has created two ports inside the harbour?—A. Yes. Q. One being Sydney and the other North Sydney?—A. Yes. Q. And that is simply for Customs purposes?—A. Yes. Q. Well, among sea-faring men that is known to be simply for Customs purposes, is it not?—A. Yes, if I go inside that line I come under the Customs regulations. Q. But where your vessel is bound to Sydney for orders, you have over and over again stayed outside the bars?—A. Yes, where the vessel was bound there for orders I have never gone inside the bars. Q. In other words, in calling at Sydney for orders you have never gone within what is defined as the Customs port?—A. No, I would be taking money out of the owner’s pockets by doing so.
Walter McLean, also called for defendants, a master mariner for 12 years, says that he had been in Sydney harbour about six times and only once went inside the bars, being then chartered to load there; that Sydney is a port to which a great many vessels go for orders; that in anchoring outside he alwavs considered he was in Sydney harbour:
[Page 11]
I would say, as we understand it, that this (pointing to the chart) is the entrance of Sydney harbour—Cranberry Head on one side and Low Point on the other. The customs people define the harbour, away inside of that.
Richard Bradley, also called for defendants, a master mariner since 1878, had frequently been to Sydney for orders and always came to anchor between the headlands and the bars. He says that the place along there is, he supposes, called Sydney; that is where he was going for orders; that he has seen vessels anchored along there most anywhere. This on direct examination. On cross-examination, he was asked where he considers that the harbour line begins:
Ans. We always consider that a line between Cranberry Head and Low Point is the mouth of Sydney Harbour. There is no question about that. We consider then that we are in the harbour and exempt from pilots. If we get in there without pilots we don’t have to take one.
Now this is indeed the testimony of navigators, rather than of shipowners and underwriters, but practices so uniform and reasonable and founded on consideration for the shipowner’s benefit may fairly be presumed to be known to and approved of by them. Probably any master who should go inside the bars and so incur charges would very soon hear from his owner. Besides, the charts furnished by the owners to the vessels show the harbour line as claimed. Then this uniform practice of navigators might reasonably be known to persons engaged in the business of underwriting.
Having regard then to the recognized mercantile use of this port as a port of call, and to the natural configuration of the coast, to the admiralty charts of Sydney harbour, and to the testimony of all the witnesses as well for the defendants as for plaintiffs, it would seem that enough appears to support the finding of the court as to the area which served the purposes of the port in a commercial sense.
[Page 12]
This being so, it was not necessary that the ship should have come to anchor or be moored. The first arrival at the port is meant, and these words are implied and always understood in policies. Motteaux v. London Ass. Co.. It is held that the only qualification is that the vessel shall be there in a state of sufficient repair or seaworthiness to be enabled to be in reasonable security till she is properly repaired and equipped for the voyage. Parmeter v. Cousins; Bell v. Bell; Haughton v. Empire Marine Ins. Co.. If in such state the condition of seaworthiness is commensurate with the risk. Here the ship was clearly seaworthy in the fullest sense, and was in physical safety, and might have continued on further up the harbour without the least risk. The danger she met was in her attempt to get out of the harbour. It was therefore a peril of navigation subsequent to the first arrival in the harbour in safety.
In these views, the appeal should be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Solicitors for the appellant: Currey & Vincent.
Solicitor, for the respondents: W. Pugsley.
Email this Content