De Peyster and Charlton against Gardner

De Peyster and Charlton against Gardner. In a policy on commissions on lawful goods, the warranty against contraband is not broken, though the assured be captain, and consignee of illicit arti cles shipped on board without the knowledge of the underwriter. On error from the mayor’s court, upon a judgment ren dered against the now plaintiffs. *By the special verdict, it appeared the insurance [*493] was effected on the commissions of the defendant on “ lawful goods” consigned to him, shipped in the same vessel, and for the same voyage, as were mentioned in the preceding cases against Shaw, and against ISTeilson and Bunker. The defendant was also consignee of the contraband goods of Stansbury, and master of the Polly ; but the commissions on the contraband were not insured. It did not appear that the now plaintiffs knew any contraband was on board. In other respects, the facts correspond with those in Brown v. Shaw. [MAJORITY — Livingston, J.] Livingston, J. delivered tne opinion of the court. The assured in this policy, has, certainly, made out a case of more favor than the one we have just disposed of; for he was not owner, but only master of the Polly, and therefore, could not refuse to take the goods of Stansbury; nor had .his interest, or agency, any influence on the confiscation. The judgment of the court below must therefore, be affirmed with double costs. Judgment affirmed