
    COURT OF APPEALS, JUNE TERM, 1.822,
    Garrell vs. Hanna.
    ^^are^iSt ™av^sseUaAtPH °iiás oí™ns pame'"'to SmBntim-^aiue cy*ioe£°notec»Ter not-«¿SÍvcotct “ranee1 flora8 . iliVuthCein-'on VUThe construGi?^ Sencotile ,fmywt-‘llííUOA^
    Appeal from Baltimore county court. Sssvmpsit, for ^oney had and received, brought by the appellant, (the^ phaintiff in the court below,) against the appellee. The. general issue was pleadeffi At the trial below, it appear-e(' in evidence that thejplamtiff and jhe defendant were joint an<l equal owners of the'schoonertMuri/, and that she’ saüe(? from Baltimore to Washington, in North Carolina, the 8th of August 1816. On the 20th of August 1816,' the defendant sent to The Union Insurance Office ofMarylamí the following order for insurance, viz. " “Insurance is w'anted to amount of SÍ500 on the schooner Mary, James Garrell, master, valued at 82500, from Baltimore to Washington, N. C. ’against all risks. Tlie Mary is 126 tons burthen, light, staunch and strong, dra ws about 8 feet ■water; and tlie master, who is part owner, is so’berj industrious and attentive. She sailed on the 8th instant. Baltimore, Aug. 2Q. 1816. John Ilanna This order .was accepted by the company at one and half per cen„b and a policy of insurance was thereupon executed in tlie name of. John Hanna, and “as well in his own name, as for and in the name and names of all and every other person or persons to whom the same doth, may’ or shall appertain, in part or in whole, lost or not lost,'at and ’from,” &c. this being the usual form of all insurances effected at' that office. The Mary was lost by one of the perils insured against, and the whole of the insurance, viz. 81500, was received by the defendant. On these facts the court below, [Dorsey Ch. J. ami Ward A. J.] on' the prayer of the defendant, directed the jury, that the plaintiff was pot entitled to recover, ■ The plaintiff excepted and Appealed. ' ' „
    The cau^q was argued in this court before Chasu, Ch. J. ÍBuchanan, Earle, Martin, and Stephen, J.
    
      Raymond, for the appellant,
    stated the question, to be,. Whether or not the defendant made the insurance as welí. for himself as for the plaintiff? That the words of the poll* cy included the interest of both. lie contended, 1. That where one of tiyo joint owners did an a,ct in relation tq their property, it was for the benefit of both; and 2. That the court below should have left the evidence to the jury. On the first point he cited Lawrence vs. Sebor, 2 Caine’s Rep. 208.
    On the second point he cited Cocksedge vs. Fanshaw, 1 Bougl. 119, Gibson and, Johnson, vs. Hunter, 2 H. Blit. Rep. 205. Macbeathys. iialdimand,, 1 T, R. 182, per Bui■ler, J. ...........
    
      R. Johnson, for the appellee,
    contended, 1 That the order and the policy of insurance were the only evidence in the pause, and there was nothing in either to show that the insurance was effected for the benefit of both; that the rule laid down for the construction of such qvidence was settled by this court in Ferris vs. Walsh, ante 30G,
    2. That there was no reason why the insurance should be for the benefit of both; they were joint owners^ of the vessel, blit not of the cargo. That there could be no insurance for a part owner without his' particular direction. French vs. Backhouse, S Burr. 9,79.7,2729.
    3. That if this was a partnership transaction the action could not be sustained, there being no liquidated balance Heath vs. Hubbard, 4 East, 109.
    
      Raymond, in reply,
    insisted that the action might be maintained, although they were partners. That where the sum could he ascertained, one partner might sue another. But he contended, that joint owners of a ship were not partners; that they were tenants in common, 2 Esp. Big. 198, Wilson vs. Read, 3 Johns. Rep. 175.
   judgment affirmed.  