Слике страница

What can be
1. Ship

shipped; but the packet being bound for S., and refusing to touch at P., the oats were resold by B. to O., to whom the bill of lading was delivered. Held, that the plaintiff had a sufficient interest to entitle him to sue the underwriter on the policy (n).

$ 130. If a person be interested in a thing, he may insure it to the extent of such interest; unless the interest be based on an illegal or void contract. Consequently, a ship or its cargo can be insured by the respective owners thereof. Again, not only the mortgagor, but also the mortgagee of a vessel or the cargo can insure it; provided that while the mortgagor can recover the full value, the mortgagee can only recover in the event of a loss to the extent of the mortgage debt, unless he intended to cover the interest of the mortgagor as well as his own (0).

The owner of a ship may insure not only the ship, but also the freight, either for the whole voyage or for part of it (p). If part of the freight be prepaid he may insure the remainder (9), including the advantage he would derive from carrying his own goods in his own vessel (r). The owner can insure his ship, even though he has chartered her under a charterparty which made the charterer liable for her full value ($).

On an insurance on freight the underwriters are liable, if the ship is prevented from earning freight by any of the perils insured against, to make good to the amount of their subscriptions the loss incurred by the owners (t). If the owner sell his ship, but reserve his right to the freight

2. Freight.

(n) Sparkes v. Marshall, 2 Bing. N. C. 761.

(i) Irving v. Richardson, 2 B. &
Ad. 193; Ladbroke v. Lee, 4 De G.
& S. 106.

(P) Montgomery v. Egginton, 3
T. R. 362; Taylor v. Wilson, 15
East, 324; Michael v. Gillespy, 2
C. B., N. S. 627.

(9) See Allison V. The Bristol Marine Insurance Co., 1 App. Cas. 209.

(1) Flint v. Flemyng, 1 B. & Ad. 45; Devaux v. J'Anson, 5 Bing. N. C. 519; see “Cases" (1) at end of this ļ.

(s) Hobbs v. Hannam, 3 Camp. 93.

(1) Atty v. Lindo, 1 B. & P. N. R. 236, 240, per Mansfield, C. J.

which the ship is in the act of earning, he will be able to insure such freight.

The shipowner will have an insurable interest in freight agreed to be paid under a charterparty immediately he commences to perform his part of the contract (u). But where there is no charterparty he will have no insurable interest in freight, until the goods are shipped or in such a position that the freight must be earned, unless one of the perils insured against should occur (x).

The charterer of a ship can insure her to the full extent of his liability under the charterparty. Further, if he re-charter the ship, or load her as a general ship, on freight, he will be able to insure such freight (y).

Freight advances, or sums of money advanced by the 3. Freight charterer in part payment of the freight, will increase his insurable interest to the extent of the sums so advanced ; provided only it is clear from the charterparty that the advances were intended as part payment of the freight, and not as mere loans. For in the event of the loss of the ship and cargo, the former cannot be recovered from the shipowner, while the latter of course can (x). The shipper of a cargo may insure both the goods 4. Cargo and

profits. shipped and also the full amount of the profits he expects to realise. But the anticipated profits on goods never actually shipped, or never legally vested in the shipper, cannot be insured by him (a). From this it follows that


(u) Barber v. Fleming, L. R., 5 Q. B. 59; see “Cases" (2) at end of this s; Foley v. United Insurance Company of Sydney, L. R., 5 C. P. 155 (S. C.); Horncastle v. Suart, 7 East, 450.

(x) Patrick v. Eames, 3 Camp. 441; Curling v. Long, 1 B. & P. 634, 636; Forbes v. Aspinall, 13 East, 323.

(y) Arnould, Ins. Pt. I. Ch. III.

[ocr errors]

of this s; Wilson v. Martin, 11 Ex.
684 ; 25 L. J., Ex. 217; De Silvale
v. Kendall, 4 M. & Sel. 37; Alli-
son v. Bristol Marine Insurance Co.,
1 App. Cas. 209; Hicks v. Shield,
7 E. & B. 633; Williams v. The
North China Insurance Co., 1 C. P.
D. 757 ; 35 L. T. 884 (C. A.).

(a) Anderson v. Morice, 1 App.
Cas. 713; 46 L. J., C. P. 11;
M'Swiney v. Royal Ex. Ass. Co., 14
Q. B. 631, 616 (S.C.); see “Cases"
(4) at end of this .

p. 61.

(3) Manfield v. Maitland, 4 B. & Ald. 582; see “ Cases" (3) at end

an insurance effected on the expected profits of a cargo, which the insured can only claim under a contract void by the Statute of Frauds, will be invalid (6). Again, the purchaser of a cargo to be loaded on board a ship, expected to arrive at a certain port, where it is to load for a voyage, the purchaser agreeing to pay a sum certain “per cwt., cost and freight,” will have no insurable interest in the purchase. Therefore, should the cargo be lost before the loading is completed, the purchaser will not be able to recover on a policy effected on goods in the ship (c).

A person interested only in the cargo will have no insurable interest in the ship (el).

Commissions, payable on the sale of the goods or merchandise shipped, can be insured by the person who would

be entitled thereto on the sale being effected (e). 5. Bottomry Advances on bottomry or respondentia will give the and respondentia loans. lender, but not the borrower, of the sums advanced, an

insurable interest in the advances, provided the bottomry or respondentia bonds be valid (s). But advances repayable to the lender in any event, and not dependent on the safe arrival of the ship or cargo, are not insurable. So advances made in England for the repair of a ship will not be insurable by the lender, unless the moneys have been advanced on the security of the ship, as by way of mortgage or bottomry. Bottomry and respondentia advances must be specifically named in the policy. Thus they will

not be covered by a policy on "goods and merchandise" (9). Bill of Money advanced on a bill of exchange in a foreign port

a exchange.

for the use of a British ship, cannot be insured, for the bill of exchange will give the lender no lien on the ship (1).

(6) Stockdale v. Dunlop, 6 M. & W.224.

(c) Anderson v. Morice, 1 App. Cas. 713; 46 L. J., C. P. 11.

(d) Kulen Kemp v. l'igne, 1 T.R. 304, 308.

(e) Gregory v. Christie, 1 Park, 14; King v. Glover, 2 B. & P. N. R. 206.

(f) Glorer v. Black, 3 Burr. 1394; Simonds v. Hodgson, 3 B. & Ad. 50 (S. C.); Stainbank v. Fenning, 11 C. B. 51; Stainbank v. Shepard, 13 C. B. 418.

(9) Glorer v. Black, 3 Burr. 1394. (1) Palmer v. Pratt, 2 Bing. 185; “Cases” (6) at end of this s.



A master of a vessel will have an insurable interest in 6. Wages of his wages and personal property. On the other hand, the master and wages of the seamen or officers are not capable of being insured ; though property purchased with their wages can be insured by them (i).

A trustee may insure to the same extent and in the 7. Trust same manner as any other legal owner (k).

property. Prizes can only be insured by the captors after an actual 8. Prizes. grant to them by the Crown. However, the captors have an insurable interest before condemnation in prizes, when the property is vested under some Prize Act, as e.g., under 45 Geo. 3, c. 72, s. 3, subject only to the right of the Crown to release the prize, and to its being restored by a judgment of the Admiralty Court (1).

CASES. 1. A shipowner effected a policy on freight at and from the Coromandel coast to Bourbon. The ship put into a port on the Coromandel coast for repairs. The shipowner purchased a cargo, and had it ready to be shipped, at a distance of about seven miles from the port. The ship was lost by an accident in leaving the dock. Held, that the shipowner's interest in the profit of conveying the cargo was properly described as freight, and that the cargo being ready when the ship was about to leave the dock, the risk attached (m).

2. On 7th August, 1866, the plaintiff chartered his ship C., then at Bombay, for a voyage from H. to a port in the United Kingdom, to carry a full cargo of guano, freight to be paid at the port of discharge. The plaintiff, on 7th September, 1866, effected an insurance with the defendant at and from Bombay to H., while there, and thence to any port in the United Kingdom, on freight chartered or otherwise, valued at 3,6001., in the ship C.; with liberty to sail to, touch and stay at, any ports. The ship, on 4th October, 1866, sailed from Bombay for H. in ballast, intending to call at a port in New

[ocr errors]

(e) Duff v. Mackenzie, 3 C. B., N. S. 16; see “ Cases" (6) at end of this $ ; Webster v. De Tastet, 7 T. R. 157; The Neptune, 1 Hagg. Ad, 227, 239.

(1) Lucena v. Crarfurd, 2 B. &

P. N. R. 269, 324 (H. L.), per Lord

(1) Arrould, Ins. p. 90-99 ;
Stirling v. l'aughan, 11 East, 619.

(mm) Deraux v. J'Anson, 5 Bing. N. C. 519.


Zealand for water. She got on shore on the coast of New Zealand on the 25th December, and was so injured as to necessitate the abandonment of the voyage. Held, that as the ship had sailed in ballast with the sole object of going to H. to earn the freight under the charter, from thence to the United Kingdom, the shipowner's interest in the freight had commenced, and that he could recover the amount of the loss sustained from the underwriter (n).

3. In the memorandum for charter it was stated that half of the freight was to be paid in cash on unloading and on right delivery, and the remaining half by bill on London at four months' date. Then followed these words, “ The captain to be supplied with cash for ship's use.” In pursuance of the last stipulation the master drew a bill on the freighters, which was duly accepted and paid. Held, that the freighters had no insurable interest in the bill, as it was not a payment of freight in advance, but a loan to the shipowner (o).

4. The plaintiff, in London, contracted to purchase from D. 6,000 bags of rice, to arrive from Madras by the ship E. before the end of May. He further contracted with W. to sell him, at an advanced price, the same rice to arrive as above. The rice was ready to be shipped, and 1,200 bags were actually on board, when, by perils of the sea, the ship was disabled, and the rice on board spoiled. Held, that the plaintiff's expected profit from the re-sale was an insurable interest (r).

5. A shipmaster, having borrowed money of R., in order to secure R. arranged with P. that he (the master) should draw, in favour of R., bills on P.'s agent in Calcutta. The bills were to be payable thirty days after the arrival of the ship. They were to be indorsed by R. to P., who was to negotiate on Calcutta upon the master's consignment to P.'s agent there, goods equivalent in value to double the amount of the bills. Held, that P. had no insurable interest in the bills (9).

6. A policy was effected by a shipmaster on his "effects, valued at 1001., free from all average.” Some of the articles so insured were totally lost by the perils insured against; but others were saved. Held, that the insured could recover in respect of the goods so lost, the term "effects” being employed to avoid enumerating the various articles insured (r).

(n) Barber v. Fleming, L. R., 5 Q. B. 59.

() Manfield v. Maitland, 4 B. & Ald. 582.

(p) M.Swiney v. The Royal Ex. Ass. Co., 14 Q. B. 634, 646 (S. O.)

(9) Palmer v. Pratt, 2 Bing. 185.

(n) Duff v. Mackenzie, 3 C. B., N. S. 16.

« ПретходнаНастави »