10. After feveral claufes for the regulation of thefe corporations, fect. 12. prohibits any other fociety or partnership whatfoever from making infurances, declaring the policies void, and the fums underwritten forfeited, one half to his majesty, and the other to the informer. And if they lend money by way of bottomree, the bond or other fecurity fhall be void, and fuch agreement fhall be adjudged to be an ufurious contract, and the offenders fhall fuffer as in cafes of ufury.

11. But any private or particular perfon or perfons fhall be at liberty to underwrite any policy, &c. or may lend money by way of bottomree, as fully and beneficially as if this act had never been made, so that the fame be not on account or risk of a corporation, body politic, or of perfons acting in a fociety or partnership for that purpose.

12. Action by an underwriter against a broker to recover a fum of money received by him to plaintiff's ufe. A lofs having happened upon a policy underwritten by plaintiff, he had paid; but one B. having agreed to take half the plaintiff's rifk, he had paid his moiety into the hands of the defendant, to recover which the action was brought. Lord Kenyon C. J. thought this a partnership within the act, and that the plaintiff, being himself the underwriter, could not enforce fuch an illegal contract. But where a fingle name appeared on the policy, the infurer fhould never be allowed, if a lofs happen, to defeat a bona fide insurance, by faying that there was a fecret partnership. And afterwards he faid, that the other judges in B. R. were of the fame opinion. Sullivan v. Greaves, Sittings after Eafter 1789. Park.

13. There are other claufes fecuring to the South Sea and Eaf- Sec. 24. 26. India Companies all the rights and privileges which they had en- 28. joyed previous to the paffing of that act, and the right of lending money on bottomree to the captains of their own ships.

14. The most frequent fubjects of infurance are fhips, goods, what things merchandizes, the freight or hire of fhips: alfo houfes, ware- may be in houfes, and the goods laid up in them from danger by fire, and fured. infurance on lives. Park, 9. Cites Magens, 4.

15. It is now eftablifhed as the law and practice of merchants, that refpondentia and bottomree must be specified and mentioned in the policy of infurance, and that under a gener! infurance on goods and merchandizes the party infured cannot recover money lent on bottomree. Glover v. Black, 3 Burr. 1394. 1 Bluck. 405.

16. But this cafe did not mean to determine that no special intereft in goods could be given in evidence in other cafes than thofe of refpondentia and bottomree. Per Lord Mansfield. Ibid. 3 Burr. 1401.

17. The lien which a factor to whom a balance is due has upon the goods of his principal was admitted to be an intereft capable of infurance, in Godin v. London Afrance Company, 1 Burr. 489.

18. Money expended by the captain for the ufe of the hip for whichrefpondentia intereft was charged, may be recovered under

ад

Vid. 8 G. 1. c. 24. 1. 7.

an infurance on goods, fpecie, and effects. It being proved that there was an exprefs ufage in the East-India trade (upon a voyage in which the policy in queftion had been made,) that this kind of intereft is always infured in this way. Which was held to diftinguish it from the cafe of Glover v. Black. Gregory v. Chriftie, B. R. Trin. 24 Geo. 3. Park, 11.

19. By the marine regulations of moft if not all of the trading powers in Europe, infurances upon the wages of feamen are forbidden. But this regulation is not meant to prevent mariners from infuring thofe wages which they are entitled to receive abroad, on goods which they have purchafed there with. Park, 12. cites I Magens, 18, 19.

20. A policy against the lofs of Fort Marlborough for the benefit of the governor is good. The place being only a factory, and the infured, though called a governor, being really but a merchant. Carter v. Boehm, 3 Burr. 1905. 1 Black. 593.

21. Infurances upon the fhips or goods of enemies feem legal Ord. of in this country, though prohibited on the continent. 1 Vef. 320. Stockholm, Gift v. Mafon, Sittings at Guildhall, Mich. 1785. Park, 14. theek's Queft. Jur. Pub. lib. 1. c. 21. p. 153.

Bynker

Of the re

quifites of policy.

See Cox et

al. v. Parry, 1 Term Rep.

44. in

which it

was held,

22. It has been fince decided by the unanimous decifions of the court of B. R. that a policy of infurance upon the goods of an alien enemy is illegal and void. Brandon v. Nisbett, 6 Term Rep. 23. Briflow v. Towers, ibid. 35. See alfo 33 Geo. 3. c. 27. f. 4. 23. By 25 Geo. 2. c. 26. no infurances fhall be made on money leut on bottomree on foreign fhips or goods bound to or from the Eaft Indies, under the forfeiture of trable the fum infured or lent, But there is an exception in favour of the fubjects of fuch fovereigns as carried on a trade with that part of the world previous to October 1748. This act was to have been in force feven years, and frems not to have been continued. Park, 15.

24. By 25 Geo. 3. c. 44. it fhall not be lawful for any perfon a or perfons who refide in Great Britain to make or caufe to be made any policy of infurance upon their intereft in any fhip, or any goods, merchandizes, or other property, without inferting in fuch policy his, her, or their own name or names, as the perfons interested therein, or the name or names of the perfon or perfons who shall effect the fume, as the agent or agents of the perfon fo really interested therein, or for whofe ufe or benefit, or on whose account such policy or policies is or are underwrote: and that it fhall not be lawful for any perfon or perfous who fhall not live or refide in Great Britain to make or caufe to be made any policy of aflurance upon their interest in any fhip or fhips, or any goods, merchandizes, or other property, without inferting in fuch policy the name of the agent or agents of the perfon or perfons fo really interested therein, and grounds, the for whofe ufe or benefit, or on whofe account the fame is fo made and underwrote; and every policy made or underwrote contrary tor was not to the true intent and meaning hereof fhall be null and void to all

that the ex

ecutors

could not

recover be

caufe, amongst other

name of

their tefta

inferted in

the policy.

intents and purposes.

25. In an action on a policy of infurance on a fhip and cargo from Sunbury in Georgia to Amfterdam, it appeared in evidence that the plaintiffs had been formerly owners of the veffel, and refided in Georgia, but they had transferred their property in her to one Peirec, living there alfo; fubfequent to which the policy was underwritten. The names of the plaintiffs tood at the head of the policy, and the declaration ftated that they had made it for the benefit of Peirec. The court were of opinion, that under the foregoing act when an agent effects a policy for his principal refiding abroad, fuch agent's name fhould be inferted eo nomine as agent, and that this policy not having done fo, it was void. They alfo inclined ftrongly, that by the act it is neceffary that the agent should live in England when the principal refided abroad. Pray et al. v Edie, 1 Term Rep. 313.

26. But by 28 Geo. 3. c. 56. that act is repealed, and it is declared, that it shall not be lawful for any perfon to make or effe&t, or cause to be made or effected, any policy of affurance on any fhip, or upon any goods, merchandizes, or other property, without first inferting in fuch policy the name or names, or the ufual ftile and firm of dealing of one or more of the perfons interested in such afsurance; or without, instead thereof, first inferting the name or names, or the ufual ftile and firm of dealing of the perfon or perfons refiding in Great Britain, who fhall receive the order for and effect fuch policy, or of the perfon or perfons who fhall give the order or directions to the agent or agents immediately employed to negociate or effect fuch policy. Every policy made contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act to be null and void to all intents and purposes.

27. The husband of a fhip has no right to infure for any partowner without his particular direction: nor for all the owners in general, without their general direction, or fomething equivalent to it. French v. Backhoufe, 5 Burr. 2727.

28. It feems neceflary to infert the names of the fhip and mafter The name in order to fix with precifion the bottom on which the adventure of the ship is to be made. Though fometimes there are infurances generally and mafter. upon any ship or flips expected from a particular place."

Park, 19.

29. Mr. Park feems to doubt whether if a different captain came in the fhip from that whole name is mentioned in the policy, it would be therefore void, as the policy always contains the words," or whoever elfe fhall go for mafter in the faid ship." Ibid.

30. In Kewley v. Ryan, 2 H. Black. 343. where a policy of infurance was on a cargo of cotton and other goods from Grenada or London put on board any fhip or fhips, the court of C. B. were unanimous that the affured had a right to cover by fuch policy whatever ship he thought proper that fell within the terms of it.

31. The owners of goods infured, by the act of fhifting them from one fhip to another do not preclude themfelves from reco

vering an average lofs arifing from the capture of the fecond fhip, if they acted from neceffity, and for the benefit of all concerned; Plantamour v. Staples, 1 Term Rep. 611.

32. It is abfolutely neceffary that it should be specified in the policy whether the infurance is made on the fhips, goods, or merchandizes. But the practice feems unfettled as to fpecifying the particulars of goods by their marks, numbers, and packages, rather than including them under the general denomination of merchandize. Park, 20.

33. Underwriters are not anfwerable upon a general policy on goods, for goods lafhed on deck, the captain's clothes, or the thip's provifions. But they must be fpecifically named, a policy on goods meaning only fuch goods as are merchantable, and a part of the cargo. Rofs v. Thwaite, Sittings after Hil. 16 Geo. 3. at Guildhal, cor. Ld. Mansfield. Park, 21.

34. Action on a policy upon goods to London," and till the fame fhould be fafely landed there." The owner of the goods brought down his own lighter, received them out of the ship, and before they reached land an accident happened, whereby the goods were damaged; a fpecial jury, by direction of Lee, C. J. found that the infurer was difcharged. Sparrow v. Carruthers, 2 Stra. 1236.

35. In England no exprefs time for unloading is ftipulated, but there must be no unreafonable delay, the estimation of which must always depend upon circumftances. Park, 23.

36. The underwriter is liable for a robbery of the goods when committed by thieves from without. Harford v. Maynard, cor. Ld. Mansfield at Guildhall, Hil. 1785. Sed qu. if for depredations committed by thieves in the veffel. Vide Park, 26. 37. Credit is given by the underwriters to the broker, and not to the affured, where the premium is not paid down at the time the affurance is made. Airy & al Affignees of Milton v. Eland, Sittings at Guildhall, cor. Ld. Mansfield, Trin. 14 Geo. 3. Park, 27.

38. By feveral ftatutes relating to the flamps, every policy of infurance, not exceeding one thoufand pounds, must have a fix fhilling ftamp, and if above that fum a flamp of eleven fhillings. Park, 29. and the ftatutes there cited.

39. By 17 Geo. 3. c. 50. f. 17. every fkin or piece of vellum or parchment on which any policy of infurance fhall be written, whereby the property of one or more perfons in houfes or goods fhall be infured to a greater amount in the whole than one thou fand pounds, over and above the feveral duties already impofed, there fhall be an additional duty of five fhillings. This statute feems only to relate to ipfurances against fire.

1.

Of the Conftruction of the Policy.

A Policy muft always be conftrued as nearly as poflible according to the intention of the contracting parties. 1 Burr. 347. Roccus. Not. 18. Park, 30.

2. Whatever is done by the master of the fhip, in the ufual courfe, neceffarily et ex jufta caufâ, although a lofs happen thereon, the underwriter shall be anfwerable for. 1 Burr.348.

Park, 30.

3. Action on a policy on the fhip Hope, from Hamburgh to London," and till the flip fhall have moored at anchor 24 hours in good fafety." In the courfe of the voyage the master committed barratry by fmuggling. The fhip arrived in fafety at her moorings, and remained there 27 days, when he was feized by the revenue officers for this fmuggling. The court of K. B. were of opinion, that this was a confequential damage for which the infurer was not liable, for if his liability be extended beyond the time. limited in the policy, it would be impoffible to lay down any fixed rule. Lockyer & al. v. Offley, 1 Term Rep. 252.

4. The Succefs was infured" at and from Leghorn to the port of London, and till there mcored 24 hours in good fafety." She arrived on the 8th July, and was moored, but on the fame day was ferved with an order to go back to the Hope, and perform a 14 days' quarantine. The men upon this deferted her, and on the 12th the captain petitioned to be excufed going back. On the 28th the regency confidered the petition and ordered her back. On the 30th she went back, performed the quarantine, and sent up for orders to air the goods, but before fhe returned she was burned on the 23d Aug. Lee C. J. held the infurer liable, for though the fhip was fo long at her moorings, fhe was not fo in good fafety, which must mean the opportunity of unloading and difcharging. Waples v. Eames, 2 Stra. 1243.

5. In an insurance upon freight, if an accident happens to the fhip before the goods are put on board, which prevents her failing, the infured cannot recover the freight on the policy, for the plaintiff's right to it had not commenced. Tongue v. Watts.

2 Stra. 1251.

6. But if the policy be a valued policy, and part of the cargo be on board when fuch accident happens, the reft being ready to be fhipped, the infured may recover to the whole amount. Montgomery v. Eggington, 3 Term Rep. 362.

7. On an infurance warranted to depart with convoy, the ship was taken in her way to the place where a convoy was appointed for that trade; Lee C. J. held the infurer liable. Gordon v. Morely, and Campbell v. Bordieu, 2 Stra. 1265.

8. Infurance on a fhip from her arrival at Fort St. George till the fhould arrive at London. Lord Hardwicke, Canc. was of opinion that if the be in a bad condition, and goes to the nearest

place