Description of necessary for taking the fish, and preparing and bringing home their animal produce. (d) the subject insured in the policy. Ship. It has been decided, and is now established in accordance with the general custom of whaling voyages, that outfits in this sense, i. e. fishing stores, are not protected by a general insurance in the common form on the "body, tackle, apparel, &c. of the ship (e);" and the practice in the United States, accordingly, is to describe the different interests insured in a United States. fishing voyage, as "ship, outfit, and cargo." (f) Mode of insuring whaling risks in the The boat is included nomina tim in the of a policy on ship: hence, evidence of missible to show that underwriters on such a policy, Although, however, this point is decisively established with regard to policies of insurance, yet the courts have decided that the fishing stores of ships employed in the Greenland fishery are to be valued as part of the "ship," under the first section of the act for limiting the responsibility of owners in certain cases. (g) 66 It will be observed, that the "boat" is included by name as part of the ship in the common policies of insurance; common forms hence, in a policy on ship in the common form upon the body, tackle, apparel, munition, ordnance, boat and other usage is inad- furniture," of the ship, Lord Lyndhurst would not admit evidence of a usage to show that underwriters never paid for boats outside the ship slung upon the quarters, on the ground are not liable that, though "usage may be admissible to explain what is doubtthough carried ful, it is never admissible to contradict what is plain.(h) In this case it should be observed, that it had been proved on the part of the plaintiffs that such slinging of the boat on the quarters was usual and necessary in voyages of the description insured against: if the contrary were the case, and it could be shown that the boat was carried in any way being danger which, while exposing it to extraordinary risk was not proper for loss of boats in a dangerous way outside the ship. Unless it can be shown that the way in which they are carried, besides ous, is unusual. the subject and necessary on the voyage insured, it might fairly be con- Description of sidered that, as in the case of goods carried on deck, the insured in the underwriter would not be liable unless informed by the policy policy.-Ship. of the nature of the risk: thus, in a case decided in the United States it seems to have been assumed that, if it could be clearly shown that carrying boats slung at the stern davits, besides being a dangerous, was also an unusual, mode of carrying them on the voyage insured, the underwriter under the common form of policy could not be liable for their loss. (i) The nature and extent of the interest which the assured has in his ship need not be disclosed on the face of the policy thus, the mortgagee of ship may, as it seems, even since the Registry Act of 6 G. IV. c. 116. s. 45., recover on a general policy of insurance on ship to the extent of his interest, without specifying the nature of it on the face of the policy. (j) The rule is the same in the United States; where the owner of a ship who had chartered half of her, the mortgagee, and (though this was in one case doubted) the mortgagor have all been allowed to recover to the extent of their respective interests on general policies on the ship, in which the nature and extent of their interests was not disclosed. (k) In one case Lord Ellenborough seemed to think that the interest of captors who had no grant, but only a reasonable expectation of a grant of the captured property, must, if insurable at all, be specifically described in the policy (7): but the interest vested in the Crown, on its adoption of the captor's insurance, may be covered by the common form of policy. (m) ART. 3. What is covered by a General Insurance" on Freight." The nature and extent of the interest which the assured has in his ship need not be disclosed on the face of the policy. Query, whether captors in an ungranted the interest of prize must be specifically de scribed in the policy. § 100. Freight must be insured eo nomine in the policy, Freight must which is generally adapted to an insurance on this interest be insured no (i) Hall v. Ocean Ins. Comp., Phillips, on Insurance, vol. i. pp. 168, cited Phillips on Ins., vol. i. p. 194. (j) Irving v. Richardson, 1 Mood. & Rob. 153. S. C. in Banc., 2 B. & Ad. 293. (k) See the cases collected by Mr. 169. (1) Routh v. Thompson, 11 East, 433. (m) S. C., 13 East, 274. minatim. the subject Description of by inserting the words "on freight" at the foot, or in the margin of the instrument: the question is what interest may be covered under a general insurance "on freight." insured in the policy.Freight. What is cover ed by the word freight in po licies of insur ance. The owner who has let out under a char ter-party may As we have already had occasion to observe, the word freight, in policies of insurance, has a very wide and extensive signification, and comprehends all benefit derived by the shipowner from the employment of the ship, whether as a general seeking ship carrying the goods of several merchants, (i. e. freight, properly so called,) or as a ship let out at a certain sum, by contract of affreightment, for the voyage. (n) There can be no question in this country, that a shipowner his ship to hire who has thus let out his ship to hire by a charter-party, either for a gross sum for the whole voyage, or for a fixed sum per cover his inte- month, &c., payable as long as the voyage lasts, may cover his interest in this charter-money under a general insurance on freight. (0) rest in the charter-money, under a general insurance on freight. When such general policy will cover suis advanced as part of freight Such general insurance, when effected by the shipowner, will cover any sums advanced by the charterers for sailing charges, &c., whenever by the terms of the charter-party such advances can be considered as part payments of the freight. (p) If the charterer, however, wishes to protect by insurance the sums which, under the charter-party, he is thus to advance, he ought, it seems, to insure his interest specially, "as money advanced in part payment of freight, or money paid for the shipment of goods to be transported to," &c. "Such a payment," said Lord Tenterden, "is not properly freight, but the price of the privilege of putting the goods on board the ship in order to have the opportunity of their being conveyed to their place of destination. (2) (n) See as to this, Winter v. Haldimand, 2 B. & Ad. 659. For the purposes of convenient distinction it might be as well to call this species of freight charter-money, a term which, with that view, seems to have been adopted in the United States. (0) Etches v. Aldan, 1 Mann. & Ryl. 157. The S. P. has been determined in the Supreme Court of Mas sachussets, † Clark v. Ocean Ins. Comp., 16 Pickering's Rep. 289. (p) Per Bayley J., in Etches v. Aldan, 1 Mann. & Ryl. 165. When these advances shall be so considered, see De Silvale v. Kendall, 4 Maule & Sel. 37. Manfield v. Maitland, 4 B. & Ald. 582. Saunders v. Drew, 3 B. & Ad. 445. (q) Winter v. Haldimand, 2 B. & the subject Freight. As between the shipowner and freighter, indeed, money so Description of paid by the latter is not, strictly speaking, freight; but in insured in the policies of insurance it does not appear why, in cases where policy. the charter-party clearly shows that it is to be advanced as a portion of the charter-money, it may not be insured eo nomine as freight, as well as the charter-money itself, which, though undoubtedly insurable under a general policy on freight, is yet, as Lord Tenterden in this very case says, "not properly freight, but the price of the hire of the ship: " however, in practice it will be safer to insure it specially. means cargo Where the owner of the ship is also owner of the to be conveyed in it, he has an insurable interest in the profit which the conveyance of the cargo would bring him; and such profit is properly described in the policy under the term freight, which, as we have just seen in policies of insurance, "the benefit derived to the shipowner from the employment of the ship." "It is the same thing to the shipowner," as Lord Tenterden says, "whether he receives that benefit of the use of his ship by a money payment from one person who charters the whole ship, or from various persons who put specific quantities of goods on board, or from persons who pay him the value of his own goods at the port of delivery, increased by their carriage in his own ship." (r) Accordingly, it is now established law in this country that the assured, under a general insurance on freight, may recover the profits he expects to make by carrying his own goods in his own ship on the voyage insured. (s) It has been doubted in the United States whether a charterer who hires a vessel for a voyage at a certain fixed rate per month, payable on completion of the voyage, can insure the benefit he derives by the employment of the ship so hired, in carrying the goods of other persons on freight, under a general policy on freight (t); it has also been there doubted, Ad. 649. See the dicta of Lord Ten- Devaux v. J'Anson, (s) Ibid. 45. (t) + Mellen v. Natchez Ins. Comp., the subject insured in the policy. Freight. Description of whether such general policy will cover the interest of a party who has sold his vessel, reserving to himself a right to receive the freight for the voyage insured. (u) The ground of this doubt is the same in both cases, viz. that in neither has the assured the same stake in the safety of the ship as though he were owner; and that, therefore, his effecting a general insurance on freight is an imposition on the underwriters, who, when they are asked to insure freight generally, must presume that they are dealing with the owner of the ship. the voyage insured, may cover their respective interests by a general policy on freight. Profits cannot be insured as goods and merchandise, but must be specifically de scribed as such in the policy. Aliter in the Mode of adapt- insurance on profits. The objection, however, does not appear to be well founded; for the interest of the assured in both the cases supposed seems, as far as the freight is concerned, to be precisely equivalent to that of the owner; in fact, charterers so circumstanced must be regarded as owners pro hâc vice, having at least as much interest in the ship's arriving so as to earn freight, as the owners would have if insured to the full value of the freight to be earned. (v) ART. 4. Profits must be specifically described. § 101. Profits cannot be insured under the general designation of goods and merchandise, but must be specifically named in the policy (w): this rule is absolute in our own country; but in the United States it appears to have been considered that "profits and commissions" would be covered by an insurance on "property" (x); and it is stated to be the custom in Philadelphia to insure them under the general denomination of goods. (y) The mode in which our common printed policies are adapted to an insurance on profits, is either by writing the words "on profits" at the foot or on the margin of the policy, or else by filling up valuation clause as follows: "The said ship, &c., goods and - (u) † Mellen v. Natchez Ins. Comp., 1 Hall, 452., cited 1 Phillips, 201. (v) See the judicious remarks of Mr. Phillips on this point, vol. i. pp. 200, 201, (w) So resolved by all the judges, in the Lucena v. Crawfurd in Dom. Proc., 2 (x) † Holbrook v. Brown, 2 Mass. Rep. 280., cited Phillips, vol. i. p. 192. (y) † Pritchett v. Ins. Comp. of N. Amer., 3 Yeates, 461. Phillips, vol. i. p. 191. |