Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/799

This page needs to be proofread.

784 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �io proceed to and to use a United States gulf port west of New Or- leans, and a loss west of New Orleans, on such voyage, was not a risk within the permitted voyages of the policy. There was no way, under the policy, by which the vessel could enter the gulf, consist- ently with the first written Une, except by the permission in the sec- ond written Une, and that permission gave her no right to be west of New Orleans on a voyage to Morgan City. There is a clear intention manifested and expressed by the words of the policy of not insuring against the perils of a coasting trade on the gulf coast west of New Orleans, or against the perils of trying to enter a United States gulf port west of New Orleans. �The case of Snow v. Columbian Ins. Co. 48 N. Y. 624, was the case of a purely time policy, not prescribing any voyage or trade, and hav- ing warranties against using certain ports, places, and waters. One of them was a warranty not to use ports in the British North Ameri- can Provinces except between certain days. The vessel, at a time not between those days, sailed for a port in a British North American province, and was lost on the coast of that province, about 50 miles from that port, at a time not between those days. It was held that the insurer was liable, as there had been no use of the forbidden port. The decision was put on the ground that the vessel had a right to be in the water where she was. In the present case, on a proper con- struction of the policy, the vessel was sailing in forbidden waters. �The case of Palmer v. Warren Ins. Co. 1 Story, 860, was the case of an exception or exclusion of what would otherwise have been included in the general terms of the policy. It differed frpm the pres- ent case. Moreover, the policy was purely a time policy, with no designation of prescribed or permitted voyages or trade. �The libel is dismissed, with the costs of the respondent in the district court, taxed at $20, and costs of the respondent in this court. ��� �