
    Bernard McLain, Resp’t, v. British and Foreign Marine Insurance Company, Limited, App’lt.
    
      (New York City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed October 29, 1895.)
    
    Pleading—Complaint—Marine Insurance.
    An allegation of the complaint, in an action on a policy of marine insurance, that plaintiff has duly performed all the conditions of said policy of insurance on his part, sufficiently alleges that the insured vessel is in a seaworthy condition, within the requirements of the policy.
    
      Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount of the policy.
    The complaint is as follows:
    The plaintiff complains of the above-named defendant, by Hyland & Zabriskie, his attorneys, and respectfully shows to this honorable court1 as follows: First, that at the times hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was, and is now, an actual inhabitant and resident of the state of New York; second, that at the times hereinafter mentioned, as plaintiff is informed and believes, the defendant was, and is now, a foreign corporation, duly ” created, organized, and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Great Britain, and had then, and has now, an office for the regular transaction of business in the city of New York; third, that at the times hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was the sole owner of the canal boat Agnes K., her tackle, apparel, and furniture, to an amount exceeding the whole amount insured, as hereinafter stated;fourth, that on or about the 1st day of October, 1892, at the city of New York, N. Y., in consideration of the premium of $50, which the plaintiff then and there paid to the defendant, the said defendant, by its agent, duly authorized thereto, made its certain policy of insurance in writing, numbered 0478, upon the canal boat Agnes K., her tackle, apparel, and other furniture, then lying in "the port of New York, against the perils of the sea, and other perils in said policy of insurance mentioned, whereby it insured the plaintiff, Bernard McLain, for account of himself, to the amount of $1,000, from noon on the 6th day of October, 1892, to noon on the 6th day of October, 1893; fifth, that on or about the 16th day of September, 1893, the said canal boat in prosecution of a voyage from Guttenberg, N. J., bound for Seventy-ninth street, East river, New York city, having on board a cargo of 220 10-100 tons of coal, which she had taken on at Guttenberg aforesaid, and while in tow of the steam tug Nettie L. Tice, sprung a leak, by the perils of the sea, about 8:30 p. m. on the day aforesaid, while off the West Shore ferry, and sunk with the cargo of coal in her, and became thereby and now is, a total loss, and that the said canal boat, her tackle, apparel and furniture, were reasonably worth more than the sum of $1,000 at the time of taking out of said policy of insurance, and also at the time of'her loss by the perils of the sea as aforesaid; sixth, that plaintiff has duly fulfilled all the conditions of said policy of insurance on his part, and more than sixty days before the commencement of this action gave to the defendant due notice and proof of such loss or damage, and of the amount thereof, and proof of the interest of the insured, and duly demanded from the defendant payment of the said sum of $1,000, less the sum of $125, being the amount of the particular average provided for in and by the said policy of insurance; seventh, that no part of the same has been paid, and there is now due and owing from the defendant to plaintiff the sum of $875, with interest thereon from “January 1, 1894. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against said defendant for the sum of $875, with interest thereon from the 1st day of January, 1894, besides the costs and disbursements of this action.
    
      Stewart & Maclclin, for app’lt; Hyland &■ Zabrislcie, for resp’t. •
   McCarthy, J.

We have given this case very careful study, and think that the various objections claimed by the appellant have been met, and the ease was correctly submitted to the jury. The complaint was proper in form, and sufficiently complied with claim of appellant. See Code Civ. Proc'. § 533. The authority cited byappellant as controlling this case, to wit, Van Wicdle v. Insurance Co., 97 N. Y. 350, 353, is distinguished in the case of Singleton v. Insurance Co., 132 id. 298, 303, 304; 44 St. Rep. 414, and in our judgment meets this case.

We find no errors, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.  