 | 1855 - 980 стор.
...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... | |
 | Great Britain. Court of Exchequer, Charles Crompton, Sir John Jervis - 1833 - 728 стор.
...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 v. ROYAL ExcnANur. Assun. Co. of Pleat, is plain. The cases which are collected in 1 Phillips(a), .-... | |
 | Francis Hildyard - 1845 - 894 стор.
...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 - 1845 - 822 стор.
...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 - 1849 - 798 стор.
...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 - 1850 - 832 стор.
...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 - 1910 - 806 стор.
...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 - 1855 - 490 стор.
...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... | |
 | Alexander James - 1855 - 488 стор.
...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. 
