Baker v. Ludlow

Decided July 15, 1801

New York Supreme Court · decided 1801-07-15

This was an action on a policy of insurance, on goods, from North Carolina to Martinique. At the foot of the policy, was the following memorandum : “ It is agreed, that salt, grain of all kinds, Indian meal, fruits, cheese, dried fish, vegetables and roots, and all other articles perishable in their own nature, are warranted by the assured, free from average, unless general.” The cargo consisted of pickled fish, peas and other articles.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1801-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1908

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1By the terms of the memorandum, fish in general were not intended to be included ; and the expression dried fish implies that other fish were not intended; for expressio unius exclusio est alterius.(a) The subsequent words, £! all other articles perishable in their own nature,” are not applicable to the articles previously enumerated, nor can they repel the implication arising from the enumeration of them. The weight of evidence is also in favor of this construction, as being that in which the sense of the words is generally understood. We are, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiff must have judgment.

¶2Judgment for the plaintiff(b)

¶3(a) See Co. Litt. (Coventry’s read, ed.) 210, (a.); Bro. Max. 278,286, where many cases are cited.

¶4(b) Upon the construction of policies of insurance, see 1 Phillips on Insurance, 43, et seq.; l Duer on Ins. 158, et seq.