« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Upon any kind of goods and merchandizes," &c. The goods upon which the underwriter insures must
3 Goods. be specified. So that if there be a lending on bottomry 3 Barrow, 1394, or on respondentia, such interests must be expressly Glover v. Black. mentioned in the policy. Though if there be an express usage to insure any species of property in a particular manner, the Courts will pay attention to it. As, where the policy was on goods, specie, and effects," it was sworn, that money expended by the captain, (who was the plaintiff,) for the ship's use, and for which he charged respondentia interest, was never mentioned in Park, 14. Greany other manner, and in conformity with this usage gory r. Christie. only, he was suffered to recover.
But money advanced to the captain is not the subject Maule & Selof insurance, and the premium may consequently be ken v. Allnutt ;
wyn, 39, Siffregained; nor can bills payable thirty days after the 4 Barnewall
Alderson, 582, expected arrival of a ship be insured by the holder. Again, the captain's clothes and the ship’s provisions 26, Ross v.
Maitland; Park, are not within a general policy on goods, nor goods Thwaite. stowed on deck, for such a policy extends only to goods > Bingham,185,
Palmer v. Pratt. which are a part of the cargo. But where some carboys of
Park, 26, Backvitriol were carefully stowed on the deck, that being the house v. Ripley. usual place for such goods, it was held, that the underwriter need not have been informed of it, although it appeared to be likewise usual to bed them below in sand 4 Campb. 142, for greater security. With respect to dollars, jewels, &c. the reader is re- Park, p. 26,
Marshall, p. ferred to the treatises, as no decision has taken place, 323. and as foreign writers differ on the subject, it may be advisable to insure money, &c. specially (p).
Da Costa v.
(p) In Da Costa v. Frith there was an insurance on bullion, and no objection was taken. 4 Burrow, 1,966.
ken v. Allnutt.
8 Geo. 1, c. 24, In order to interest seamen in the return of their ships, sect. 7.
the masters of merchant vessels are restrained by statute
from paying more than a moiety of their wages beyond 7 Terin Rep. sea, and, by consequence, it is illegal for them to insure 157, Webster
their v. De Tastet. wages, as they would then be secure in case of loss
whether from their own negligence or any other cause.
Nor can a captain insure money lent to him payable out Campb. 626, of the freight, nor as we have seen, money lent to him Ex. Assurance. abroad. For the principle is, that the party should have 1 Maule & Sel- an interest in the thing insured, and therefore an insu-. wyn, 39, Siff
rance on the “ commissions, privileges,” &c. of a captain 2 New Rep. 206. of a slave ship was holden good. King v. Glever. 2 East, 544,
So the profits expected upon a cargo of goods. Barclay v. Cou- And so the governor of a fort who had insured it for sins, Marshall,
twelve months for his own benefit was considered to be
justified in doing so; but in this last case, it is observable 3Burrow,1,905, that the underwriter knew the governor's character at Carterv. Boelim. the time of making the policy. Prohibited
For the better understanding the subject of prohibited Goods. 6 Geo. 4, c.107; goods, we must refer to the new statutes for the general 6 Geo. 4.c.111; regulation of the customs, and for granting duties of particularly, a
customs. list of goods absolutely prohibited to be imported, in the Statutes of the United Kingdom, vol. 10, 374 ; and the Tables of Customs inwards, Idem. p. 430. 4. Ship, &c.
“ And also upon the body, tackle, apparel, ord.
nance, munition, artillery, boat and other furniture “ of or in the good ship or vessel called the Aurora, “ whereof is master, under God for this present " voyage, A. B. or whosoever else shall go for “ master in the said ship, or by whatsoever other
name or names the said ship or the master thereof " is or shall be named or called.”
and see more
“ A true description both of the name of the ship and “ of the voyage intended, should be observed to the " extent which the terms of the policy itself require.” But a mistake of the broker, who wrote “the American ship Resident," instead of “ the President," was held 6 East, 382, Le
6 East, 385, by I ord Ellenbo. rough
Mesurier v. not to vitiate the policy. And so again, where the ship Vaughan. was called “the Leopard,” but turned out to be “the “ Leonard,” the same doctrine had prevailed before Chief 6 East, 385,
Hall v. Moli. Justice Lee.
neux, cited. And the master's name should be also inserted with Park, p. 21. accuracy, although the words “ or whosoever else shall “go
for master,” &c. would probably cover a mistake in that respect.
Under the word “furniture,” provisions sent out for 4 Term. Rep. the use of the crew are protected, at least while the ship Whitmore. is proceeding on her voyage; but where a vessel was detained under an embargo, it was held, that the assured 1 Term Rep. could not recover for seamen's wages and provisions. 27, Robertson And the lines and tackle in the Greenland fishery are not recoverable as “ furniture," for they are no part Park, p. 97, of the ship's tackle. It follows, that wages and pro- ersgill. visions cannot be recovered where the insurance is
Park, p. 89, the ship only.
Hoskins v. Pick
Insurance on “ Ship or Ships."
The assured may cover whatever ship he thinks pro- Park, p. 22 ; per, and he may apply his insurance in the same manner,
2 Henry Blackwhere his policy is upon “ship or ships.”
Kewley v.Ryan; Where goods were removed from one ship to another id. 345, n.
Henchman v. by the owners, and the second ship is lost, they may Omey. nevertheless recover, having acted in the best manner for · Term Rep. all concerned.
mour v. Staples. In the absence, however, of a stipulation that the Changing the policy shall cover more than one ship, it seems, that the ship. ship cannot be changed so as charge the underwriter
611, n. Planta
in case the second vessel be lost. The underwriter was
held liable on an insurance effected on the ship the 2 Strange, 1248, plaintiff set out in, but, he having moved into another, and see Park p. could not have recovered had the latter been lost. 433-437
Insurance on Freight.
5. Freight. Where no special contract exists, the right of freight 2. Strange: 125! does not begin till the goods are on board ; and so, where Tonge v. i New Rep. an accident happened to the ship before the lading, 23, Sellar v. M. Vicar;
Lee, C. J. held, that the plaintiff could not recover. 1 Campb. 520, And so it is also if the voyage agreed upon never comForbesv.Cowie. 13 East, 323,
mence in consequence of an accident, and it makes no Forbes v. Aspi- difference that the policy is a valued policy. 3 Terin Rep.
But if part of the cargo be on board, and there be 362, Montgo
a valued policy, the insured may recover to the whole mery v. Eggin
amount. And so where the policy was open, but there was a charter-party that the ship should depart out of
the Thames, and go to Teneriffe to load, here it was held 6 Term Rep. 478, Thompson
that the inception of the contract for freight began when v. Taylor; the ship quitted the Thames. So, “profits," on a cargo i New Rep,236, Atty v. Lindo ; actually laden may be a valid subject of insurance. And 3 Campb. 276, where the contract for freight is entire, although the Eyre v. Glover; 16 East, 218. policy be open, and the freight be to be estimated ac7 East, 400, cording to the quantity of goods on board, the underHorncastle v. Suart
, 1 Maule writer is liable though, in point of fact, no goods are & Selwyn, 313, shipped. Davidson v. Willasey ;
However, where the ship, having been detained, was 2 Broderip & Bingham, 320,
set at liberty, and earned her full freight afterwards, Truscoit v.
although the expenses of her stay exceeded the value of Christie. 2 Maule & Sel- the freight, the underwriter was nevertheless, held to be wyn, 278, discharged in this case. Everth v. Smith,
It is not competent for a party to insure on the i Campb. 543, Knox 1. Wood: expectation of commissions on the freight of goods.
There are various warranties touching the sailing of a 6. Warrantics. ship, and it is a rule, that they should be literally and strictly construed, being in favour of the underwriters and against the assured.
“ Warranted to sail (or depart) with convoy." Ships must sail under the convoy appointed by the Park, 498, Ilib
bert v. Pigou. government of the country. The protection, therefore, of an accidental ship will not satisfy the warranty, and, in a case of this kind the jury found their verdict for the underwriters. And sailing instructions have been deemed absolutely · Bosanquet &
Puller, 5, Webb necessary to fulfil the contract, if by diligence they can
v. Thomson; be obtained. 2 Bosanquet & Puller, 164, Anderson v. Pitcher, See Park, p. 502. But where the captain did every thing in his
2 Strange, 1250,
Victorin v. get the sailing order, which he failed in procuring by
Cleeve. reason of the tempestuous night, the warranty was accomplished. So where the commodore refused the
Park, 500, in orders, but said, “keep on, and I will take care of you ;” notis, Verdon v. there was sufficient compliance with the engagement to Wilmot. sail with convoy. Depart with convoy."
2 Salkeld, 443
Lethulier's This phrase must be construed according to the usage Case ; Id. 445, among merchants, i. e. from such place where convoys are sales; to be had, and a ship may go to the general rendezvous 2 Strange, 1265. for convoy, although there may be a convoy nearer to her ly; 4 Campb. loading port; and if there are no convoys at the port 62, Warwick v whence she begins her homeward voyage, she need not
4 Campb. 3449 call for convoy in her way home. Park v. Hamond ; Douglas, 72, Lilly v.. Ewer.
The warranty extends to the whole voyage, although 3 Levin2, 320, a separation by tempestuous weather will excuse the Jefferey v. Le