
    Maxwell against Robinson & Hartshorne.
    A j. f. surance, con-,^n voyage from ^rbadoes^nd amarbet.” It was held that these words gave the insured liberty to go, bonaf.de, from island to island in the JVest Indies, until he sold the whole of the cargo.— ^tat oneisland, and apart at another, until the whole is dis-Poseclof'
    THIS was an action on a policy of insurance, dated the 22d September, 1803, upon the schooner Little Tom, valued at §2000, “ on a voyage from New-York to Barbadoes and a market, and at and from thence to New-York.
    
    The cause was tried at the New-York sittings, the 9th fanuaru 1806, before Mr. Justice Livingston. J J ’ J
    , , , , . , 1 he vessel sailed on her voyage, and arrived at Barbadoes in safety, and not finding a market there, proceeded to Santa Cruz, after stopping at one or two other places, and finding no market. The greater part of the cargo was sold at Santa Cruz ; but not being able to sell the residue, the vessel proceeded to St. Thomas, where the remainder of the outward cargo was sold, and after taking in a homeward cargo, she set sail for Néw-York. The , , . . , , . . , vessel having encountered very heavy gales of wind, was so shattered as to be obliged to put into Norfolk to refit; and the present action was brought to recover the amount of repairs.
    The plaintiff offered parol evidence to prove, that according to the understanding of merchants, and persons engaged in the West-India trade, the words in the policy, ft to Barbadoes and a market,” gave a liberty to go from island to island, in the West-Indies, and- to sell a part at each, until the whole was disposed of. The counsel for the defendants objected to this evidence ; but the judge, considering the-word “ market,” as one of doubtful signification, admitted the proof. Several merchants and underwriters testified, that these words had been used in policies for many years, and that they always understood, and believed, and that it was generally so received among the merchants trading to the West-Indies, that they gave the liberty of going to all or any of the ports in the West-Indies, and to touch and trade, until a market was found for all the cargo. Some of the witnesses, however, thought the liberty extended no farther, than to one port beyond that named in the policy, or at least, that after having sold a part of the cargo at one island, the insured could not proceed to another, and be protected by the policy. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
    A motion was now made to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial. 1. Because, the parol evidence of the meaning of words in the policy, was not admissible. 2. If it was admissible, it was insufficient.
    
      D. B. Ogden, for defendants,
    was stopped by the court. Kent, C. J. It was decided in 1794, that the words used in the policy, allowed the insured to go from port to port, until he found a market for his whole cargo ; but I do not recollect the name of the case at present.
    Ilarison, for the plaintiff.
    I do not recollect the case alluded to ; but I shall contend that ex vi termini, these words give the liberty to go to all or any of the ports in the West-Indies, until the whole cargo is sold. I should suppose, however, that it was peculiar to policies on voyages to the West-Indies, in reference to this particular course of trade.
   Per Curiam.

By the words in the policy, to Barbadocs and a market, a vessel may bona Jide go from island to island, until her whole cargo is disposed of; but we do not mean to say, that the same construction is to be given to a policy, in any other trade than that to the West-Indies, Our opinion is, that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment-

judgment for the plaintiff.  