are not covered by a general policy on goods and merchandise, nor the ship's provisions (e), even though the ship carries nothing but passengers. (ƒ) "In merchandise," says Mr. Justice Park, "is included all property of great value, unless attached to the persons of the passengers." (g) Thus jewels, ornaments, cash, &c., not designed for trade, but carried about, or belonging to the persons of those on board, do not (as the better opinion seems to be) fall within the general description of goods and merchandize; and, therefore, in case of loss, would not, it seems, be recoverable under a policy on goods in the general form. (h) Description of the subject insured in the policy. Nor the mas ter's clothes, nor the ship's provisions, for the same rea son, even though the ship carries only a passengers. Goods lashed on deck are not covered by general policy Unless there is " on goods." a usage so to carry them, and even then they should either be insured as Goods lashed to the deck, as they are exposed to a greater hazard than goods carried in the ordinary way, are not covered by a general insurance in the common form on goods and merchandise (i); if, indeed, they are so carried by virtue of any general and well-known custom of the particular course of trade on which the insurance is effected, the underwriter is presumed to be acquainted with such usage, without having notice of it, and therefore may fairly be supposed to undertake the risk of their being so carried on deck. As, however, the custom only applies to certain descriptions of goods in any trade, it may be doubtful whether, even in this case, the goods ought not to be specifically described in the policy, in order that the underwriter may be apprised that he is to run the extra risk; in the only case in which the point directly arose, the insurance was declared by the policy to be "on forty carbuoys of vitriol." (j) The observations of Lord Lyndhurst Observations of (e) Ross v. Thwaites, Park, 23. 8th ed. Provisions are included in the ship. Stevens on Average, 60. 5th ed. (f) Brown v. Stapylton, 4 Bingh. 119. on this subject, where the above mentioned authorities, with many others, are cited by. Emerigon, chap. xii. sect. 42. and chap. x. sect. 11. Mr. Phillips thinks there is no ground for (9) Ibid. 122. and see S. P. as to the exception. Phillips on Ins., vol. i. provender of live stock, † Wolcott v. p. 173. Eagle Ins. Comp., 4 Pick. 429. post. (h) See Park on Ins. 30. 8th ed.; Marshall on Ins. 327.: who cite Santerna and Roccus on the point, without, however, referring to that great storehouse of all the foreign learning Ross v. (i) Riphouse v. Backley. or their particular species described in the policy. Lord Lyndhurst. the subject insured in the policy. Goods. 66 Description of on this point are well deserving of attention: "Goods carried on deck," he says, are not in the part of the ship where goods are usually carried; they are in more than usual peril, and an usage that they are not covered by an ordinary policy on goods, but that they require a distinct explanation to the underwriter, of the part of the ship in which they are to be carried, or (where that will imply the same information) of the nature of the goods, is not at variance with any part of the policy, is essential to the information which the underwriter ought to receive, to enable him to estimate the risk and calculate the premiums, and is a portion of that fairness which ought to be rigidly observed upon all these contracts.” (k) In whaling voyages the only cargo, properly so called, on whaling ships board the ship, from first to last, is in general the homewardbound cargo, consisting of the immediate produce and result ance on goods of the fishing adventure; such proceeds, therefore (i.e. the oil, whalebone, &c., taken in the fishery), may be, and, in practice, generally are, covered under the general designation of "goods and merchandise." (1) The produce of the fishery in is covered by a general insur and merchan dise. But the outfit, i. e. the fishing stores of such ships, are not. Outfit in such voyages principally consists in the apparatus and instruments necessary for taking fish, seals, &c.,* and the disposing of them when taken, in such a manner as to bring home the oil, whalebone, and other animal produce of the adventure, with the greatest convenience and advantage: outfit, therefore, in such a voyage, cannot be considered as "goods," in any proper sense of that word; i. e. as Lord Ellenborough defines it, "as part of the wares or cargo for sale laden on board the ship:" accordingly it cannot be recovered under a general policy on goods. (m) the point decided was, that goods carried (k) Per Lord Lyndhurst C. B., in (1) Hill v. Patten, 8 East, 374. So held also in the United States, in a case where the insurance was "on the cargo of a ship for a whaling voyage.” † Wolcott v. Eagle Ins. Comp., 4 Pickering, 429. (m) Hill v. Patten, 8 East, 373. in the subject insured in the policy. Goods. Insurance on 66 cargo" will not cover prostock. † United vender for live It has been held in the United States, that a general Description of insurance on 66 cargo" will not cover provender taken on board for live stock, which constituted a great part of the cargo (n); nor will it cover the live stock so carried. (o) With regard to live stock, the rule is the same in this country: Thus, where a general policy on goods was tended to cover live stock, the insurance was declared, at the foot of the policy, "to be on thirty mules, ten asses, and thirty oxen," &c. (p); and in another case, where a policy was effected" on goods, as per annexed statement, valued at 28001," it appeared that three horses, a loss on which was claimed under this policy, were parcel of the goods valued in the statement. (q) States. stock be insured Nor can live under the general description of goods and merchan dise. Generally in practice when the cargo consists of few commodities, or of produce valued by the hogshead, pipe, bale, &c., it is specified by name and num ber. Although the interests and commodities already mentioned comprise the greater number of those which must be specifically designated in the policy, yet in practice, whenever the cargo consists of few commodities, or where the goods are valued by the hogshead, pipe, bale, &c., it is almost invariable to specify the commodities by name and number. This is generally done by writing at the foot or on the margin of the policy, "on woollen goods," "on piece goods," "on one hundred tierces of coffee," "or twenty hogsheads of sugar," adding also the mark of each bale, cask, &c. (r); or it be done by altering the valuation clause so as to meet the views of the parties. It must be carefully borne in mind, that though it may not be necessary that the goods should be specified in the policy, yet if they are specified, and no property of the assured be on board which exactly answers the description given, the policy will be void, though the assured may have other property on board of equal or greater accurate. value. (s) may (n) + Wolcott v. Eagle Ins. Comp., 4 Pickering, 429., cited in Phillips on Ins., vol. i. p. 185.; and see Brown v. Stapylton, suprà. (0) Ibid. (9) Gabey v. Lloyd, 3 B. & Cr. 795. (r) De Symonds v. Shedden, 2 Bos. & Pull. 153. (s) Si dans la police on avait specifié la chose qu'on a voulu faire assurer, et (p) Lawrence v. Aberdein, 5 B. & qu'elle n'eut pas été chargée, l'assurance Ald. 107. serait nulle, quoiqu'on eût pour son If the goods are specifically described, even in cases where it is unneces sary so to de scribe them, such descrip tion must be Description of the subject policy. Thus, if an insurance be made on goods, described in the insured in the policy as "piece goods," and by the invoice it appears that the goods really shipped were "hats," the underwriter will not be liable for any loss on the hats (t): so an insurance on tortoiseshell will not cover a loss on indigo, &c. (u) Goods. Thus "hats' cannot be covered by an in surance on piece goods. Nor a manufactured article by an insurance on the separate ingre dients of which it is composed. If an insurance purports to be effected on several ingredients, described nominatim in the policy, which enter into the composition of a manufactured article, such policy will not cover a loss on the manufactured article itself, which is a new product, and has a distinct appropriate name: thus, though oil and barilla both enter into the composition of soap, yet an insurance on oil and barilla will not cover a loss on soap. (v) An insurance, however, effected on the raw material of a simple fabric, or utensil, into the composition of which no other ingredient enters to any extent, will, according to Emerigon, cover a loss on such fabric or utensil: thus, an insurance on "gold" or "silver" will, according to this doctrine, cover the loss of a gold cup or silver spoons. (w) ART. 2. - What is covered by a General Insurance “ on Ship." § 99. In our common printed forms the policy, after stating that it is effected "upon any kind of goods and merchandise," proceeds thus "and also upon the body, tackle, apparel, ordnance, furniture, munition, artillery, boat, and other furniture, of and in the good ship or vessel called the," &c. When the insurance is intended to be confined to the ship alone, this is generally effected by inserting, either at the foot or margin of the policy, the words "on ship;" or by stating in the valuation clause that, as between the assured and underwriters on the particular policy, the subject of insurance is agreed to be the ship, or as many sixteenth parts thereof compte d'autres marchandises abord. (t) Hunter v. Prinsep, per Sir J. (r) Emerigon, chap. x. sect. 3. vol. i. p. 306. ed. 1827. (w) Emerigon, chap. x. sect. 3. ubi supra. as the assured is owner of. It is hardly necessary to remark, that a policy on ship alone, even when effected by one who is owner, both of the ship and cargo, cannot extend to protect the latter. (x) In the next place, it may be now laid down as certain, that the provisions put on board the ship, when she sails, for the use of the crew on the voyage, are comprehended under the word "furniture," and protected by an insurance on the "body, tackle, apparel, ordnance, furniture," &c. of the ship in the common printed form. (y) The contrary position had been erroneously inferred from the case of Robertson v. Ewer, which decided no such point, but merely established that the underwriter on ship could not be liable for the consumption of such provisions, while the ship was detained by an embargo (z) : and this, on the short ground, as stated by Mr. J. Buller in Brough v. Whitmore, that the insurance is on the ship for the voyage, upon which, during the detention, the ship is not proceeding. (a) It was admitted, in this case of Brough v. Whitmore, that all the ship's stores and tackle were also included in the insurance on ship. (4) The word outfit is sometimes used to denote the necessary stores and provisions put on board the ship for the use of the crew on the voyage; and, in this sense, outfit is included in a general insurance on ship. (c) It is in this sense that Lord Ellenborough uses the word when he says, that "hull and outfit are both protected by an insurance on ship." In whaling voyages, however, the word outfit has a peculiar sense, and means the fishing stores of the ships so employed; ie. the harpoons, lances, spears, and whale lines, for the purpose of catching whales and seals on the voyage, and the casks, cisterns, boilers, &c., for preparing and containing the oil and blubber; in a word, all the instruments and apparatus (z) Marshall on Ins. 328. (y) Brough v. Whitmore, 4 T. Rep. 206. Stevens on Average, 60. 5th ed. (a) 4 T. Rep. 210. (b) Ibid. 206. (c) Per Lord Ellenborough in Hill (2) Robertson v. Ewer, 1 T. Rep. v. Patten, 8 East, 375. |
