
    Henry D. Brandyce et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of H. D. Brandyce & Company, Respondents, v. United States Lloyds, Inc., Appellant.
    
      Insurance — proximate cause — marine insurance — loss by deterioration of merchandise which had to be unloaded from vessel in order to repair damage arising from collision constitutes a loss caused by a peril of the sea.
    
    
      Brandyce v. U. S. Lloyds, Inc., 207 App. Div. 665, affirmed.
    (Argued October 23, 1924;
    decided November 25, 1924.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 14, 1924, in favor of plaintiffs upon the submission of a controversy under sections 546 and 547 of the Civil Practice Act. The action was to recover under a policy of marine insurance by which the defendant insured a shipment of potatoes on the steamship Corsicana from New York consigned to Caibarien, Cuba. The vessel struck some unknown object and was damaged to such an extent that she had to put into Charleston, S. C., to make repairs. The shipment of potatoes here involved was not injured directly by the collision or touched by sea water, but in order to make the repairs, the cargo, including the potatoes, had to be discharged and held at the port of refuge until the repairs were completed and the vessel resumed her voyage. The potatoes, being perishable, were not able to stand the delay, and on the advice of surveyors, whose conclusions are not disputed, the potatoes were sold for upwards of sixty per cent of their sound value. It is agreed in the submission that “ the only loss suffered, or which would have been suffered by them, was natural deterioration,” and that the vessel completed her repairs arid carried out the voyage. The question involved is whether logs by natural deterioration during a delay of the voyage caused by a sea peril is a loss by sea perils. The Appellate Division held that the proximate cause of the loss was the sea peril and directed judgment for plaintiffs.
    
      D. Roger Englar and Oscar R. Houston for appellant.
    
      Wharton Poor for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews aud Lehman, JJ.  