credit of the same per centum of salvage as if the insurance was on cargo, and in case of contribution in general average for any portion of the cargo at customary sound value, this company to be free from claim for loss on such portion. The buyers insured profit only contract

reads "no arrival, no sale.

A. The insured is entitled to his insurance on the profits for the damaged portion, but at the same ratio only that the damaged value bears to the sound value.

39. Insurance was effected on account of freight from New York to two ports in the East Indies, both ports being named in the policy, with one-half per cent, deduction from the premium if only one port was used. At the first port the vessel delivered a portion of her cargo, on which the freight was earned and due.

In event of a loss while proceeding to the second port, was the insured entitled to the full amount of his insurance ? The vessel, however, proceeded with the balance of her cargo to another port not named in the policy.

Did the risk of the insurer terminate at the first port of discharge? If so, is not the insured entitled to the reduction of one-half per cent. premium?

A. The statement of the case is not very clear, at least not sufficiently so to enable us to pass upon it without supposing some additions. If the insurance was to a specified port at a specified premium, "with liberty to use a second port, to return half per cent. if the second port be not used, no loss being claimed," which is the usual form of affecting such insurances, and the second port was not used, and no loss was claimed, then, in answer to the third question, the assured would be entitled to a return premium of one-half per cent. as provided.

If the insurance was effected in the form as above, the risk did not terminate at the first port of discharge, but was lessened by so much as was received on account of the cargo delivered at the first port of discharge.

If the policy was a valued policy, then, in case of loss between the first and second port, the underwriter would have been liable for the full amount insured, and without right to claim deduction for the amount of freight collected at the first port of discharge. The third port not being included in the policy, the risk of the underwriter terminates at the second port of discharge.

40.-1. Marine insurance companies, both mutual and stock, home

and foreign, have of late taken wharf, gin-house, railroad, press and warehouse risks (all on cotton) for periods extending from 5 days to (in some instances) several months.

2. Suppose that under those policies or certificates a fire occurs in a gin-house, on a wharf, or in a warehouse or press, can the insured recover from such marine company by law, if the company should be unwilling to pay? Or when the company is willing to pay, can a stockholder in a stock company, or a policy-holder in a mutual company, enjoin such company from paying for a risk for which it is not char tered?

A.-1. If a company is chartered simply to insure against marine losses, and is not authorized to take fire risks or to protect any property not absolutely afloat, the issue of a policy by its officers for any purpose wholly outside of its jurisdiction would be a grave offense, involving them in personal liabilities, and possibly working a forfeiture of its charter.

2. If the company is authorized, as most such corporations are, to insure against loss by fire, we see no reason why it would not be bound by its contract, nor if it is solvent, how a stockholder, or any other person interested, could interfere to prevent the payment of the proposed settlement.

41. A person owning goods stowed in warehouse of a storage company, and holding receipt therefor, insures them against fire under a floating policy. Wishing to ship the goods he delivers the receipt to steamship agent, who issues thereon bill of landing. The owner then obtains a marine policy on the goods, which are all destroyed by fire, part being in ship and the remainder on wharf ready for loading. Who is liable for the property?

A. All policies for marine insurance read as follows, viz: "Beginning the adventure upon the said goods and merchandise from and immediately following the loading thereof on board of the said vessel." In a similar case of a cargo of saltpeter to be loaded on a vessel at Boston for Antwerp, some years ago, the saltpeter was ordered out of store by the master of the vessel and piled up on the wharf, the master having the privilege to do so to consult his own convenience in loading the vessel. A fire broke out in a warehouse on the wharf; the vessel was hauled away from the wharf for her safety; but the saltpeter piled on the wharf could not be removed, and was totally destroyed. A bill of lading had been given for it and it was insured under a

marine policy. It was held in that case that the cargo was never on board the vessel, and the marine insurance therefore never attached. The vessel loaded other cargo and proceeded to Antwerp, where she was libeled, and a suit brought to make the vessel liable under the bills of landing; but it was held that the bills of lading were constructively fraudulent, the goods never having been on board the vessel. The practice of giving bills of lading before the property is on board the vessel is a dangerous one, and may lead to fraud, as well as expose innocent shippers who may suppose that their policy of marine insurance covers them, to serious loss. The mistake of the shipper in this case appears to have been in not paying a trifle additional premium, and making his insurance to cover against fire on the wharf prior to shipment. Not having done this, he must bear the loss.

42. An American importer, buys an invoice of goods from B, a British manufacturer, in July, and intrusts B to insure said goods. B ships half the goods in July and half in September, and insures according to instructions. A buys a second lot of goods from B in December, but gives no instructions as to insurance. The goods are lost. Who is responsible for the loss?

A. If the buyer said nothing about insurance in his first order, and the sellers had insured and he had paid the charges without question, he would have a fair claim, on the ground that he supposed, as a matter of course, the second lot would also be insured. But, as he gave specific directions with the first, which he omitted with the second order, we do not think he can claim of the sellers on the ground of their neglect, and he will have to bear the loss himself.

43. When a vessel in course of her voyage puts into an intermediate port of distress, and for purpose of making necessary repairs, is compelled to discharge part or whole of her cargo, does an ordinary marine policy cover all risks on cargo meantime, the master still holding it in charge alongside, or as near as may be to the vessel ?

A. Under such circumstances the marine policy covers all the risks, fire included.

44. We had a quantity of goods arrive on a vessel some time ago, in a damaged condition. It took some time to adjust the terms of settlement and prepare for the sale. Should the "sound value" be the

market price at the day of sale, or the day the ship discharged her cargo, or day of examination ?

A. The object of fixing the sound value is to determine the percentage of loss in order to apply this to the insured value, hence it should be taken at the same moment that the damaged value is ascertained, that is, at the time of sale.

45. My vessel, of 498 tons international register, has made ten or more voyages in the North Atlantic from Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York, and has always carried thirty-five hundred (3,500) quarters of wheat of 60 lbs. to the bushel or 3,300 quarters of corn of 56 lbs., the quantity of corn being the smaller only because there was no more room in the vessel's hold. With these cargoes the vessel has always been surveyed by the proper surveyors.

Now here in Boston, I have just loaded a cargo of only 3,170 quarters of wheat, the ship when loaded having a clear side of 56 inches and drawing only 17 feet aft and 16 feet 9 inches forward.

I ask you now if the surveyor for the Boston Board of Underwriters, can say that my vessel is loaded deeper than the law allows?

In all the other Atlantic grain ports I have always loaded 750 tons of wheat. Here only 678 tons.

A. No American statute, or Treasury regulation, so far as we know, fixes the depth to which a vessel may be loaded. It is a matter, however, within the practical control of the underwriters, and the Boston Board have the right to act independently, without regard to the action of the other boards.

46. The bark John was chartered to carry a cargo to Europe, but the vessel leaked so much after the cargo was all on board that the crew refused to proceed in her and the voyage was subsequently abandoned by the owners of the vessel. The cargo was insured, together with some advances made to the ship on account of freight. Can the underwriters refuse to pay the shipper for losses sustained, on the plea that the vessel was declared to be unworthy, with the cargo which she had taken ?

A. The risk of the underwriter attaches when the cargo is fairly "shipped"; whether this had been completed at the date specified is a question of fact. Unless the policy contained some condition in reference to the insurance for advances on account of: freight, restricting its application, we see no reason why it would not hold in the case described. The above is without reference to the warrant of seaworthiness. As to the latter, it is a well understood maxim, that " it enters as its very foundation into

every contract of insurance on a ship. "-Parsons on Contracts, 406. But seaworthiness is assumed as a fact in the absence of fraud, and the proof must begin with the underwriter. If he can prove this conclusively the policy does not attach; and the shipper would undoubtedly in such a case have a recourse to the owners of the ship.

INTEREST.

1. An invoice of goods is sold at a fixed price per pound, interest to be added for three months' note of buyer. The bill is rendered with interest added for 93 days. To this the buyer objects, claiming it should be only for 90 days (although the note drawn in customary form carries the three days of grace,) interest for the three days being usurious.

A. A three months' note usually runs 95 days, although this depends a little on its date; but in this State, (N. Y.,) the legal way to reckon interest to be added to a three months' note, is to take the usance for one-fourth of a year, and add it to that for one-tenth of a month. The law has decided that a promissory note given to pay money in a certain number of months is to be interpreted as a promise to pay in so many months and three days; and therefore, a contract to add interest, or to allow interest, for so many months, is interpreted to mean for so many months and three days. Unless a three months' note can be legally collected without waiting for the three days' grace, the interest on the latter is as much a part of the contract as the interest for the even three months. If "a note for three months" means a note for three months and three days, then "interest to be added for three months," means three months and three days' interest.

2. How can interest be calculated on a sealed note in the following words:

I promise to pay A B or his assignee one thousand dollars for value ⚫ received and to pay the interest annually. The note is not paid for five years, and what I want to know is, does the interest which is to be paid annually become principal and bear interest?

A. It is the holder's fault if he has not collected the interest annually, or obtained a new obligation for it, and he cannot collect compound interest at any time afterward. Simple interest