 | Law reports, digests, etc - 1855 - 980 pages
...direct variance with the words of the policy, and in plain opposition to the language it used. Usage ~̏905 M@wn 2 Z 6l N O 5!Ѧ +H3 dc $ 16[,N E { 7IB c [ 1 Kh Reference was made in the argument to the case of Brown v. Byrne, but this Court by no means intended... | |
 | Francis Hildyard - Insurance law - 1845 - 894 pages
...some voyages there is an usage to carry the " boat" on the ship and slung on the quarters, 83 4. Usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful —...it is never admissible to contradict what is plain, 84 5. The principle upon which usage may be given in evidence as to goods lashed on "deck," is, that... | |
 | John Duer - Insurance law - 1845 - 822 pages
...say that it is not upon all the furniture and apparel, but upon part only, excluding the boat. Usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain." Upon these grounds, the evidence was rejected. Although the judgment of the court in this case seems... | |
 | Sir Joseph Arnould - Average (Maritime law) - 1849 - 798 pages
...underwriters never paid for boats outside the ship slung upon the quarters, on the ground that, though " usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful, it is never admissible to contradict what is plain. (A) In this case it should be observed, that it had been proved on the part of the plaintiffs that... | |
 | Sir Joseph Arnould - Average - 1850 - 832 pages
...admitted of an usage which is at direct variance with the plain words of the policy : " usage is only admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain." * Thus, where a policy was in the common form upon the ship, that is, " the body, tackle, apparel,... | |
 | Michigan. Supreme Court, Randolph Manning, George C. Gibbs, Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Elijah W. Meddaugh, William Jennison, Hovey K. Clarke, Hoyt Post, Henry Allen Chaney, William Dudley Fuller, John Adams Brooks, Marquis B. Eaton, Herschel Bouton Lazell, James M. Reasoner, Richard W. Cooper - Law reports, digests, etc - 1910 - 806 pages
...implication contradicts it, it cannot be received in evidence to affect it. c Usage,' says Lord Lyndhuret, ' may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain.' Blackett v. Assurance Co., 2 Cromp. & 1910] REMY, SCHMIDT & PLEISSNKR v. HKALY. 273 J. 249. And it... | |
 | Alexander James - Law reports, digests, etc - 1855 - 490 pages
...Usage," says Lord Lyndhurst in Blackett v. The Rogal Exchange Assurance Company, 2 C. and J. 249, " may be admissible to explain what is doubtful ; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain." In this case the evidence went directly to contradict the contract, and to substitute a very different... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer, William Newland Welsby, Edwin Tyrrell Hurlstone, John Gordon - Law reports, digests, etc - 1855 - 1010 pages
...quarter, was inadmissible. Lord lyndhurst, CB, in delivering the judgment of the Court, says, " Usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain." Thirdly, the original contract was not rescinded by the substitution of a new contract. The delivery... | |
 | Alexander James - Law reports, digests, etc - 1855 - 488 pages
...Usage," says Lord Lyndhurst in Blackett v. The Rogal Exchange Assurance Compang, 2 C. and J. 249, " may be admissible to explain what is doubtful; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain." In this case the evidence went directly to contradict the contract, and to substitute a very different... | |
| |
usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtful; it is never admissible to contradict what is plain. 
