¶1stated, that the plaintiff was not bound to communicate the age of the vessel, or where built, unless-they had been asked of him. It is enough, if he is prepared to vindicate his implied warranty, as to the seaworthiness of the vessel, in case it be questioned. The court left it to the jury to say, whether, upon the evidence, she was seaworthy at the time the voyage commenced, there being very slight evidence, if any, to the contrary. Verdict for plaintiff.
19 F. Cas. 1048
Popleston v. Kitchen
U.S. District Court
Decided April 15, 1812
U.S. District Court · decided 1812-04-15
Actions, on two policies, .on vessel and cargo. The defence was — 1. That the vessel was built in New-England, and thirteen years of age, which circumstances were not communicated to the underwriters; and 2. That the plaintiff had not shown that the vessel was sufficiently found and manned, although the jury should be satisfied that the body of the vessel was seaworthy for the voyage.
Decided 1812-04-15