
    Hollins use of The New York Insurance Company, vs. Barney
    Appeal from Baltimore County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, and the declaration contained the usual money counts. The general issue was pleaded; and at the trial, the plaintiff, (nosy appellant,) gavein evidence, an admission ot the defendant, (the gppellep,) under hi» hand, that he had received on the 6th of April 1800, the sum of 22,138 livres, 5 sous, and 11 deniers, current mopey of France, equal to the sum of g4,025 14 cents current money of the United Stales, of the money of the plaintiff, arising from the sal.e of the cargo of a vessel called The Patapsco, which cargo belonged to the plaintiff, and had been captured and carried to France, and was there claimed by the defendant, and recovered and sold by him for the said sum. The defendant then read in evidence the following letter from the plaintiff to him, dated the 24th of December 1802; ‘‘Inclosed is my account current, with you, balance in my favour $2600 52, without interest — nor have I charged you with the ship Patapsco’s cargo received by you in France, which by your account current appears to be 22,138 5 11, or 84.025 14, for two reasons— first, because the sun) does not agree with my expectations as to the. amount; secondly, the property was insured in New York, and abandoned to the underwriters, who paid me in full. Perhaps, however, they may appoint me their agent, and in that ¿ase you shall be informed. You will perceive also that no credit is given for what you are pleased to call my proportion qf Fenwick’s judgment, 12"2 ijvrés, or girC6 It), being at present totally dark on that ^subject. At the foot of the'account two items are nut down, but not the amppnts. The first for want of information, and so of the second — which' will depend upon tkp amount awarded in London. Some other entries may occur, both Dr. and Cr. before our accounts are finally clus* ed; if so, you shall be informed.” The defendant read this letter to prove, that before the time of bringing this action, the plaintiff had caused himself to be insured on the said cargo by The New lark Insurance Company, named in the title of this cause as the persons for whose use the atetion was brought, and áfter the said capture, had abandoned the cargo to the said insurers, and h^d been by them paid for if. The defendant then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that upon the said evidence the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. This direction the court, QHollingsworth, A. gave to the jury. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    
      ' In ap action <vf asiuih/tsit brought liv ,T H, for the useof’N Y,against ,7 B, for a sum of money stated to be received for lum Id J B« fiom the sale of tin1 car* go of a ve'ssel betongm# to J H, which had been captured, &c.— Z.VW, that ,T. ÍJ* having caused (he cargo to he insured by N Y, (for •whose me the action was brought^ and after the capture lias mg abandoned the cargo to the ui!*uur*o and hauug been paid b> tin m, tiie actum could iipt. he maintained'
    
      The cause was; argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Bu“ ohanan, Nicholson, Earle, and JoiiNsori, J.
    Harper, for the Appellant,
    
      Martin and Stephen, for the Appellee,
    contended, that the action was erroneously brought, that jt should have been brought in the name of The New York Insurance Company, and not in the name of Iiolliiis, (who liad been paid,) for their use. They referred to Marsh. 519. ch. 14, s 4. Barnes vs. Blackiston, et al. 2 Harr. & Johns. 376; and The Chesapeake Insurance Company vs. Stark, 6 Cranch, 268.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.  