case gio marino de GHETTOFF and other appellant the London assurance company  respondent saint February Mews dig thirteen to a bill bring to recover a sum  of money upon a policy of insurance the defendant demurrer because the  plaintiff remedy be at law demurrer allow order of Lord chancellor king affirm  case of this nature be not the subject of inquiry even in a court of equity  because the demand be plain a demand at law and the loss and damage sustain be  as much the object of proof by witness as any other species of damage whatever  park c the policy in the present case be take in a trustee name and it be  suggest that the witness live abroad and that the trustee will not brown er p  let the plaintiff bring a action in his name but these circumstance Lord  chancellor king declare make no difference see mosely and fall v chamber  mosely S P there may however be case where a application to a court of equity  on the part of the insure be strict proper and will be entertain as if the  trustee in a policy do actual refuse his name to the beneficiary and trust in  a action at law I atk so if witness reside abroad who testimony be requisite  to the decision of the question the court of chancery will grant a commission  to examine those witness atk see park c there also case in which the insurer  may go into equity to obtain injunction to stay proceed against they at law as  in case of their witness be abroad and their have a commission to examine they  atk and on suspicion of fraud on the part of the insure in which case the  court of equity will compel the party charge to make a full disclosure brown  on oath of all the circumstance within his knowledge and to deliver up all  paper and document material to the question but except in these instance all  issue upon policy of insurance must be try in the court of commonlaw park c  mosely park in the year some merchant at ostend set up a trade to the east  Indies and among other one James Maelcamp equip a ship call the flandria for a  voyage to china wherein several person be concern Maelcamp have the care and  direction of the ship and give receipt to the several person concern for the  money they pay promise to be Accountable to they for their respective  proportion of the net profit of the voyage these transaction be carry on most  at ostend or Antwerp the several person who have a mind to be concern in the  undertake give direction to their correspondent at those place to pay Maelcamp  what sum they think fit and to take his receipt for the same the appellant  give direction to one Lewis Francis de Conninck to pay several large sum to  Maelcamp on account of the say undertake and accord de Conninck pay he diverse  sum amount to guilder and take distinct receipt for the same accord to the  proportion for which the appellant be concern therein he also by the order and  direction of the appellant and for their use and benefit agree with the  respondent to insure on the say ship the flandria pound and by a policy date  the that of December this insurance be effect at a premium of pound per cent  the ship sail from ostend on the that of February new style in order to  proceed to china but in her way and before she arrive there some time in the  month of July be seize at bencoolen in the east Indies by the governor of that  place be a settlement of the unite company of merchant of England trade to the  east Indies and the ship and cargo be thereupon confiscate the appellant upon  notice of this event apply to the respondent for payment of the pound insure  and produce to they the several receipt for their respective interest in the  ship and affidavit affirm the several sum therein mention to have be real and  good fide pay by they respective but the respondent refuse to pay the  appellant the say pound or make they any satisfaction whatsoever they in  Trinity term bring their bill in the court of chancery against the respondent  and the say Lewis Francis de Conninck pray that the respondent may be decree  to pay the appellant the say sum of pound with interest accord to their  several and respective share and proportion thereof to this bill the  respondent put in a demurrer and answer and to such part of the bill as seek  to compel they to pay the appellant the pound or to make they any satisfaction  for any loss that have happen to the ship they demurrer and for brown cause of  demurrer show that if the policy of insurance in the bill mention be forfeit a  proper action at law lie to recover the money due thereupon and that the  appellant if they be entitle to such relief as they pray by their bill may  have their complete and adequate remedy by a action at law brown er p where  such matter be proper cognisable and where the appellant ought to prove their  interest in and the loss of the ship by their answer they admit the policy and  say that they have hear that the ship be seize at bencoolen this demurrer come  on to be argue on the that of January before the Lord chancellor king when his  lordship be please to order that the consideration thereof shall be respite  until the come in of the defendant Connincks answer he have not then put in  his answer to the bill and if the appellant do not procure such answer in two  month the demurrer shall be allow Conninck accord put in his answer within the  two month and thereby admit that he make the assurance in his own name in  trust and for the benefit of the appellant but say he do not care to permit  the appellant to bring any action against the respondent on the policy in his  name he be advice that if any such action shall be bring and they shall not  prevail therein he will be personal liable to pay all the cost and charge  occasion in consequence thereof on the saint of November the demurrer come on  to be further argue when it be order that the same shall be allow the  appellant therefore appeal from the order contend c Talbot W Melmoth that they  can not maintain a action at law upon the policy in their own name and that it  be in the power of Conninck whether he will permit his name to be make use of  in such action or not but if the appellant be able to bring a action in their  own name it will be to no purpose because all their witness who can prove the  seizure and confiscation of the ship and the respective interest of the  appellant therein live at different place abroad and be not in the power of  the appellant nor can they compel they to come over here to be examine upon  any trial at law that therefore the appellant have no remedy against the  respondent upon this policy but in a court of equity where they may have a  commission for examine their witness abroad and thereby be enable to prove the  seizure and confiscation of the ship that in case they be deprive of this  remedy they will not only lose the pound to which they be just entitle but  also the pound which they pay as a premium for make the insurance while the  respondent though debtor to the appellant in pound and interest will instead  of pay such debt go away with pound of their money on the other side it be  insist I will d rider that the appellant demand be plain a demand at law as  they have nothing to prove but their interest and the loss of the ship which  be fact proper to brown be try by a jury that there be no equity suggest by  the appellant bill but a pretend difficulty to produce witness and that their  trustee refuse to permit they to bring a action in his name the former may  with equal reason be suggest in almost every case of a policy of insurance and  the latter appear manifest to be throw into the bill mere to change the  jurisdiction and be in a great measure falsify by the trustee answer for he do  not say he ever refuse but only that he do not care to permit his name to be  make use of and if bill of this kind be encourage it will be very easy to  bring all sort of property to be try in a court of equity it be therefore hope  that the order will be affirm and the appeal dismiss with cost accord after  hear counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the same shall be  dismiss and the order therein complain of affirm jour vol p