Слике страница

underwriters' consent, but should be at all events communicated to them (s).

The declaration of interest in the goods insured should be made before the loss is known; though it is not a condition precedent, it being sometimes impossible. If none be made, the policy will be held an open instead of a valued policy (t).

In the case of several policies on several parcels of goods on board ship or ships,” the insured can declare on any one of them a loss on board any ship which is covered by the terms of such policy (u). The name of the ship should be inserted in the policy. Name of

ship to be However, a mere error in the name will not vitiate the inserted in policy if the underwriters knew the ship intended (w). If policy. the merchant does not know the particular ship by which the goods are consigned to him, he can insure them board ship or ships,” provided he acts bonâ fide and declares, as soon as possible after learning it, the name of the ship or ships by which they are in fact consigned (y).


[ocr errors]

Cases. 1. Canal carriers effected an insurance for twelve months upon goods on board thirty boats, named, between London and Birmingham, with leave to take in and discharge goods at all places on the line of navigation. The insurance was agreed to be 12,0001. on goods as interest might appear thereafter. Held, that the insurance “on goods” was sufficient to cover the interest of the carriers in the property under their charge (z).

2. 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 sent on board about seven miles from the


(3) Harman v. Kingston, 3 Camp. 150.

(1) Harman v. Kingston, 3 Camp. 150 ; Gledstanes v. Royal Ex. Ass. Co., 34 L. J., Q. B. 30.

(u) Henchman v. Ofley, 2 H. Bl. 345, n.; Kewley v. Ryan, 2 H, BI. 343, 348.

(x) 1 Emérigon, vi. 3, p. 161; Le
Mesurier v. Vaughan, 6 East, 382 ;

“ Cases" (4) at end of this g.
(y) Keuley v. Ryan, 2 H. Bl. 343,

(2) Crowley v. Cohen, 3 B. & Ad.

port. The ship was lost by an accident when leaving dock. Held, that the shipowner's interest in carrying the cargo was rightly described as freight (a).

3. Goods insured in “ ship or ships” were declared to be and to be valued “on rice to be declared free from particular average.” Held, that the insurer could not, by indorsing a declaration of interest with a separate valuation of each bag of rice, create a separate insurance on each bag (b).

4. A policy insured goods on board “The American ship President, or by whatever name the same ship should be called.” The real name of the ship was "The President.” Held, that the policy was not invalidated by the error (c).

$ 136.

Voyage In the case of a voyage policy the intended voyage policies.

must be precisely described in the policy (d), i.e. the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem must be inserted. The omission of the place at which the risk is to commence running will avoid the policy for uncertainty (e). While in the case of a time policy the only effect of omitting to specify the time will be to make the risk run from the date

of the policy (1). Voyage poli- An insurance from a port or from the loading of the cies "from"

cargo will only protect the thing insured from the time from” a port. when the ship sails, or when the goods are loaded (9).

But if the words “at and from " the ship's loading port be inserted in the policy, the insurer will be liable for any accident to the ship after her arrival, or during her stay at her loading port, as, for example, a fire or detention in consequence of an embargo ().


at and

(a) Devaux v. J'Anson, 5 Bing. N. C. 519.

(6) Entwistle v. Ellis, 2 H, & N. 549.

(c) Le Mesurier v. Vaughan, 6 East, 382.

(d) Robertson v. French, 4 East, 130; Langhorn v. Hardy, 4 Taunt. 628.

(e) Molloy, B. 2, c. 7.

(f) Ball v. Knight, Fitz, 274.

(9) Hopper v. Wear Marine Ins. Co., 46 L. T. 107; see “Cases" (1) at end of this $.

(n) Haughton v. The Empire Marine Ins. Co., L. R., 1 Ex. 206; see “Cases" (2) at end of this $ ; Rotch v. Edie, 6 T. R. 413; Palmer v. Marshall, 8 Bing. 79.

If, in the case of a voyage policy“ at and from " a port, the vessel be not at the loading port at the date of the policy, or do not arrive there soon afterwards in good condition, the underwriters will, in the absence of any usage or custom, be discharged. For there is an implied condition that the ship shall be at the port within such a time that the risk may not be materially varied (ë). Supposing that the ship arrive in good physical safety, the mere fact of her being in great danger of condemnation from political causes will not prevent the policy from attaching (j).

The ship must leave the loading port as soon after arrival as she reasonably can. However, she will be protected during the execution of such repairs, or the shipping of such provisions, as are necessary to the prosecution of the voyage insured (k). An owner desiring to protect his vessel during a stay in port, should insert a clause to that effect in the policy (1).

If a vessel arrive at the outward port a mere wreck, a Policy on policy “at and from ” on her homeward voyage is of no

homeward effect (m). However, if the ship has once been at the port in a seaworthy condition, i. e. in such a state as to be safe while any necessary repairs are being executed, the policy will attach (n). So, as a full complement of seamen is not necessary in harbour, she will not cease to be seaworthy for want of a crew till she sails on the voyage (6).

If on her arrival at her outward port the vessel be staunch and seaworthy her seizure and condemnation there will not affect the policy on her homeward voyage (P).



Bing. 79; l'allance v. Dewar, i
Camp. 503.

(m) Parmeter v. Cousins, 2 Camp.
235; see “ Cases" (3) at end of

(i) Hull v. Cooper, 14 East, 479 ; De Wolf v. The Archangel M. B. & I. Co., L. R., 9 Q. B. 451.

(3) Bell v. Bell, 2 Camp. 475.

(k) Raine v. Bell, 9 East, 195 ; Motteaux v. London Ass. Co., 1 Atk. 545.

(1) Palmer v. Fenning, 3 Bing. 460, 462; Palmer v. Marshall, 8

this g.

(n) Annen v. Woodman, 3 Taunt.

(6) Ibid.
(p) Bell v. Bell, 2 Camp. 475.

[ocr errors]

Policy "at In cases where an insurance is effected “at and from and from on freight."

on freight,” when the vessel insured is at a foreign port, it will only cover the homeward freight; and not even that, until the ship is in a condition to commence shipping a

homeward cargo (9). "To an If the insurance be “to an island” or “district,” the

” island” or “district" or

risk will determine at the first port at which the vessel "port of dis- stops to unload in the island or district specified (r). To charge.”

avoid this result, the owner should insure his vessel " to her port or ports of discharge; ” or “to her final port of

discharge” (). " At and If the insurance be effected “at and from "

an island from an island” or

or district, the ship will begin to be protected by the “ district." policy immediately she reaches in safety the first port she

puts in to discharge her outward cargo in such island or district (t).

CASES. 1. On a policy the adventure upon the goods or freight was to begin from the loading of the goods on board the ship. While part of the goods were on lighters alongside the ship preparatory to being put on board, the lighters and goods therein were wholly lost by perils of the sea, and the freight insured was consequently not earned. Held, that no action would lie for such freight(u).

2. A ship insured at and from” Havanna was injured by coming in contact with an anchor, after entering the harbour, and whilst passing over a shoal up to her place of discharge. Held, that the policy had attached, and that the underwriters were liable (ar).

3. A ship was insured “at and from the island of St. Michael's." She arrived there in a very disabled state. After lying there at anchor above twenty-four hours in great danger from a storm, she was blown out to sea and wrecked. Held, that the policy on the homeward voyage never attached (y).

(a) Williamson v. Innes, 1 M. & (1) Camden v. Cowley, 1 W. Bl. Rob. 88.

417. (v) Camden v. Cowley, 1 W. Bl. (u) Hopper v. Wear Marine Ins. 417; Leigh v. Mather, 1 Esp. 411; Co., 46 L. T. 107. Inglis v. l'aux, 3 Camp. 437.

(x) Haughton v. Empire Marine (s) Preston v. Greenwood, 4 Doug. Ins. Co., L. R., 1 Ex. 206. 28 ; Moffat v. Ward, 4 Doug. 29 (y) Parmeter v. Cousins, 2 Camp. n. (a), 31 n. ().



§ 137. If the words “ lost or not lost” (Gallice sur bonnes et Lost or not

lost”-effect mauvaises nouvelles") are inserted in a marine policy, the of. underwriters, though the ship were lost at the date of the insurance being effected, or though the thing insured had not vested in the insured at the time of the loss, will be liable for any loss occasioned by any of the perils (s).

If the insured knew, when effecting the insurance, that the vessel was lost, the policy will be vitiated on account of the fraud. But if the loss were known to both the insured and the underwriter at the date of the policy, it will be good (a).

Where a contract has been made to insure the vessel, and the premium has been paid before the loss, but the policy is not executed till after the loss is known both to the underwriter and to the insured, the policy will be good (6).

Sometimes the words “ lost or not lost" are restrained by warranting the vessel to be well on a certain day. Even then, however, if she were well on any part of that day, the underwriter will be responsible, though she were lost before the policy was underwritten (c). The warranty will be complied with if the ship be safe at any time on that day.

Where a merchant insures goods he bought at sea, “lost or not lost,” the underwriter will be liable for any loss sustained by them during the voyage, but before the purchase (d).

CASE. Goods were insured from the lading of them on board the ship at London to Liverpool “ lost or not lost.” At the foot of the policy were the words “warranted well, Dec. 9th, 1784.” The policy was underwritten between one and threo in the afternoon of that day.

(-) Sutherland v. Pratt, 11 M. & W. 296.

(a) Gledstanes v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co., 34 L. J., Q. B. 30.

(6) Mead v. Davison, 4 Nev. &

Man. (S. C.) 701.

(c) Blackhurst v. Cockell, 3 T. R. 360; see “ Case” at end of this g.

(d) Sutherland v. Pratt, 11 M. & W. 296.

« ПретходнаНастави »