
    *John Warder, who survived John Dearman, against William Craig.
    Qu. Whether an English merchant can recover for premiums on insurance of goods shipped, where the same has been ordered, unless he produces the policies or accounts for their loss?
    Case. The plaintiff claimed of the defendant a balance of 137I. 3s. id. sterling, on an account for goods shipped from London, commencing in 1783.
    The defendant disputed several items of the account, and amongst others, the charges of premiums on insurances made on several shipments, unless the policies were produced. He admitted that the law in this case rested on the general rule of trade, but contended that to intitle the party to charge and recover the premiums, it should appear that the policies were subscribed. If they existed, they should be produced; if proved to be lost, copies or parol evidence of their contents would be received. He cited Dali. 316. Williams v. Craig, as expressly in point.
    The plaintiff adduced six witnesses to prove, that the general established usage was, that the London merchants charged insurance on goods shipped to America, where insurance was ordered, and regularly subjoined them to their accounts; that they usually took the risque on themselves, or at least part thereof; in some instances policies were subscribed, but' in many others not, and that no injury could arise to the American merchant, because if the goods did not arrive safely, there could be no recovery against h-im.
    The plaintiff cited 2 Vez. 239. In a "transaction between merchants in different countries, one sends to the other to insure, who pretends to do it, and charges his correspondent as if done, he shall after a loss happens, be charged as the insurer.
    This case is distinguished from that of Williams v. Craig,— There was no established rule of trade between France and Philadelphia. Our trade with that country began and ended with the American war. But between England and Philadelphia a settled rule had subsisted for many years, and the usage had been generally approved of. The plaintiff’s eharge for insurance was contained in every account rendered to the defendant; and as he made no objection thereto, he must necessarily be supposed to have acquiesced in the custom of the English merchants.
    The Chief Justice at first seemed inclined to think that to 'intitle the plaintiff to charge for the premiums of insurance, it should appear by a production of the policies that they were actually subscribed, or their loss should be accounted for: otherwise tricks might be played. Besides there may be *4151 many cases * where a merchant might employ a factor J to ship him goods, whom he might not deem competent as an assurer.
    . Mr. Rawle for the plaintiff.
    Messrs. Tilghman and Wells for the defendant.
   Shippen J.

thought differently on the grounds of the English mercantile custom, and the responsibility of the party who does not make the insurance according to order.

But no resolution was given by the court, and the parties finally agreed to go out with the jury to liquidate the whole account. The jury next morning returned in to court and found a verdict for the plaintiff for 247I. 5s. 8d. currency, validating thereby as it would seem, the charges of premiums.

Quezre. Whether any injury can possibly arise under the above usage, in any case where the goods are shipped on credit?  