
    Law et al. against Davy et al.
    If the ag-ent of the consignees accept the cargo at a port short of the port of destination, and pay the whole freight; the underwriters are not answerable, either for the expense of transporting the goods from that port to the port of destination, or for insurance effected by the consignees from one port to the other.
   Tulghman C. J.

This is an action on a policy, of insurance on goods in the ship Le Roy on a voyage from New Tork to Bremen. In the course of the voyage, the ship was taken by a British privateer, and sent into Plymouth in England. The Court of Admiralty ordered restitution to the claimants, but the ship’s papers were endorsed, with a warning, not to enter the river Weser, which was then blockaded by a British squadron. Being thus warned,- the ship proceeded to Ton¿ng-era, wherfe,Laving arrived in safety, the agents of the consignees in Bremen, received the cargo, and paid the whole freight. They then sent the goods to Bremen in lighters, one of which was captured by the British and restored. An insurance was effected from Toningen to Bremen.

The question is, whether the defendants are liable for the cost of this insurance or the . expenses of carrying the goods from Toningen to Bremen. I cannot see upon what principle the defendants are answerable for these charges. If the plaintiffs thought proper to pay the whole freight, when only part was due, it was their ovvn affair, with which the defendants had nothing to do. Here has been no loss; the goods have arrived in safety at the port of destination. Whether the plaintiffs had, or had not a right to abandon, is not now in question, for they did not abandon. The ship earned at most only a pro rata freight, and if the owners of the goods after paying the entire freight of their own accord incurred additional expenses in transporting them to Bremen, it is not in the nature of a loss for which they can claim an indemnity from the underwriters. Whether the Weser remained unde? actual blockade at the lime the goods were carried round from Toningen to Bremen does not positively appear, although from the capture of one of the lighters we are led to suppose that it did. The restitution of the goods captured in the lighter'may be accounted for from a fact mentioned in the case of ---v. -----, decided by Sir William: Scott. It seems, that the British general on a remonstrance from Bremen was induced to relax the blockade so far as to permit the importation into that port in lighters. As for the insurance from Toningen to Bremen, there is, if possible less colour for that than for the other charge. Because, if the underwriters remained liable for the risk between Toningen and Bremen they gave no authority to the plaintiffs to burden them with the costs of another insurance, which it was folly to make without necessity. And if they were not liable for that risk, of course they are not liable for the expense of insuring against it. Upon the whole, I am of opinion* that the defendants are not liable for any of the charges on the transportation of the goods from Toningen to Bremen.

YeaTes J. delivered an opinion to the same effect, which has been mislaid.

Bracicenridge J. gave no opinion, not having been pre- • sent at the argument.  