
    * Avery Bill and Another versus Simeon Mason.
    A vessel insured for the voyage, and until moored twenty-four hours in safety, arrived at her port of destination in a gale of wind, and came to anchor; the gale increased during the twenty-four hours, after which the vessel lost her anchors, and was driven on shore; it was held, the underwriters were discharged.
    This action was assumpsit upon a policy of insurance upon the plaintiffs’ brig Ranger, on a voyage from Norfolk to a port or ports in the Island of Jamaica, and until moored twenty-four hours in safety, against the usual risks; upon which policy the defendant underwrote five hundred dollars. The declaration is for a total loss by the dangers of the sea.
    The general issue was pleaded, and on the trial before Parker, J., at the last November term, a verdict was returned for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court, upon a statement of facts agreed by the parties.
    From the statement it appears that the brig sailed from Norfolk, for Anatto Bay, in Jamaica, where she arrived on the second day of November, 1807, and in the forenoon of that day was safely anchored, by a pilot of the harbor, at the usual anchoring-place, where vessels commonly lade and unlade; that, when the brig entered the bay, the wind was northerly, blowing a fresh gale, with squalls ; that the gale continued to increase until the brig lost both her anchors, and was driven on shore and totally lost; but that she rode at anchor, without receiving any damage, for which the underwriters were answerable, until more than twenty-four hours had expired after she was moored.
    Upon these facts, it was agreed that, if the Court should be of opinion, that the said brig was not moored at anchor in safety twenty-four hours, within the legal meaning and intent of the policy, before she went on shore, then the verdict was to stand, and judgment be entered on it; otherwise it was to be set aside, and judgment be rendered that the plaintiffs take nothing by their writ, and that the defendant recover his costs.
    [ * 314 ] * And now, at this term, Whiting, for the plaintiffs, contended that, for every beneficial purpose, a vessel, to be in safety, must be in a condition to discharge her lading.  But here was a continual storm during the whole time from the vessel’s first coming to anchor until she was lost.
    
      Channing, for the defendant,
    insisted that by the vessel’s being moored in safety must be understood her being in a sound condition, without actual damage, not free from all hazard and danger. If a loss happening one hour after the expiration of the time limited by the policy, is chargeable to the underwriters, so may a loss happening a month after. And it is of no importance to this point that the cause of the final loss actually existed before the end of the time limited.  In the cases cited for the plaintiffs, the voyage was not determined ; but in the case at bar, the voyage was completed ; and a policy insuring the vessel at Jamaica would have attached before the loss happened. If there was no such policy, the plaintiffs were their own underwriters.
    The opinion of the Court was afterwards delivered by
    
      
      
        Marsh 175. — 2 Str 1243, Waples vs Eames. — Park. 35, Minett vs Anderson
      
    
    
      
       1 D. & E. 252, Lockyer vs. Offley.— Marsh 174.
    
   Parsons, C. J.

The question between the parties is, whether the underwriters are answerable for the loss of the vessel in the manner and at the time stated in the case. — The counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that the brig could not, within the intention of the parties, be considered as moored in safety, until the weather was such that she might safely land her cargo. — On the other side, it is contended that the brig was in safety, until she received some damage from a cause insured against, for which the assurer was answerable; and consequently that she was in safety after having been moored twenty-four hours.

We have considered this point with some attention, and are sat isfied that the verdict must be set aside.

The effect of this clause in policies, assuring a vessel after she shall have arrived at her port of destination, and been moored at anchor twenty-four hours in safety, is in * fact a prolonging of the timé for which the assurers [*315] have engaged to be liable, without varying the nature of the perils insured against. If, without this clause, the vessel be insured to her port of destination, the voyage is determined on her arrival and being moored on the usual anchorage ground; but with this clause, the policy is further extended twenty-four hours. If, therefore, no loss, for which the underwriters are answerable, shall happen during the voyage, or during twenty-four hours after, they are discharged. And the vessel is safe within the terms of the policy, until she suffers a loss insured against.

This construction seems necessary, to give some termination to the risk; for, if we adopt the construction of the plaintiffs’ counsel, that the vessel is .not moored in safety while she is in hazard of a loss, she never can be moored in safety ; for in the finest weather she may be in danger of fire, lightning, enemies, and other perils, if not exposed to any sea-risks.

The insurance is not on the cargo; and whether the weather was suitable for unlading the cargo, or not, is no concern of the assurers. They did not stipulate for the safety of the cargo, or for the convenience of landing it. They are answerable only for losses on the vessel during the voyage, and for twenty-four hours longer, arising from perils insured against.

Let the verdict be set aside, and, according to the agreement of the parties, let judgment be entered that the plaintiffs take nothing by their writ, and that the defendant recover his costs. 
      
       [The vessel must have arrived at a safe or usual place of anchorage, or the voyage will not have terminated. Dickey vs. United Ins. Co., 11 Johns. 358. — Ed.]
     