merchandise, &c., for so much as concerns the assured's, by Description of the subject agreement between the assured and assurers in this policy, insured in the are and shall be on profits." (z) ART. 5. Bottomry and Respondentia must be specifically described. policy. Respondentia loans must be specifically de and bottomry § 102. Respondentia and bottomry loans must be specifically and nominatim described in the policy, and cannot be insured under the general denomination of goods and mer-scribed as such chandise. (a) Lord Mansfield put this on the ground "that by the custom of merchants, respondentia is insured under a special denomination:" but Mr. J. Kent has also suggested, as a reason for the rule, "that the risk is peculiar, as there is neither average nor salvage; and a capture does not mean a temporary taking only, but one that occasions a total loss." (b) in the policy, and are not co vered under the general words goods and merchan dize. shown to be the usage of At all events, it is certain that, if it can be shown to be Unless it is the usage of any particular course of trade to insure these interests under the general words, they may be recovered under a policy containing such words only. Thus, on the ground of the custom of the East India trade so to insure, an East India captain was permitted to recover at respondentia interest money he had laid out for the use of the ship, under the general words "goods, specie, and effects on board."(c) The master of a ship, having raised money abroad, on the security of what purported to be a bottomry bond, the lender insured his interest by a policy which described the subject of insurance to be "on bottomry, free from average and without benefit of salvage(d): " the Court of Common Pleas upon the trading on which the policy is effected, so to insure them. An insurance will not cover "on bottomry' the lender, secured by an the interest of instrument that is not in law a bottomry bond. Description of the subject insured in the policy. Bottomry. An insurance purporting to be on "bills of exchange" will not cover in struments that are not, legally speaking, bills. the construction of the instrument of hypothecation were of opinion, that it was not, legally speaking, a bottomry bond, because it made the lender's claim under it depend, not on the arrival of the ship, but on the arrival of the master: that court therefore held, that the lender could not recover in respect of such an instrument in a policy " on bottomry," on the ground, as stated by Mr. Chief Justice Tindal, "that when the underwriter entered into a contract, in which the interest of the assured was described to be an interest on bottomry, he had a right to expect that it would be what is ordinarily termed bottomry interest. (e) The Court of King's Bench, when this case was brought before them in error, although on the construction of the instrument they differed from the Court of Common Pleas, and on that ground reversed their judgment, yet admitted that, had the Court of Common Pleas been correct in their construction of the instrument, the policy as framed would not, in such case, have covered the interest of the lenders. (f) ART. 6. Description of certain Miscellaneous Subjects of Insurance. § 103. There is sometimes a difficulty in accurately describing the subject of the insurance, and yet accuracy of description is requisite in every case where a specific description is necessary. The following case of Palmer v. Pratt affords a good illustration of this difficulty. In that case the policy was effected "upon any kind of goods and merchandise," &c. in the common printed form, for a voyage from London to Calcutta, and the insurance, by a memorandum on the face of the policy, was declared to be the subject insured in the policy. subjects of in Miscellaneous on two bills of Exchange:" as, however, it appeared, that Description of the supposed bills were drawn on a contingency, being made payable at thirty days after the ship's arrival at Calcutta, the court held, that such instruments, being mere waste paper, were improperly described as bills of exchange, and that therefore, on this ground, their value, in case of loss, could not be recovered under such a policy. (g) The ship Leonidas was chartered for a voyage from Buenos Ayres to Canton and back, at a gross sum payable not as freight, properly so called, but as the price of the hire of the ship for the voyage. Part of this sum was paid, as Part of this sum was paid, as stipulated by the charter-party, by the charterer's agents at Canton, to cover the expenses of shipping the homeward cargo there. The charterers, who had shipped on board the vessel at Buenos Ayres a large sum of dollars to be invested in produce at Canton, being desirous of securing their interest in the adventure, caused a policy to be effected, in the common form, for the proposed voyage, "on specie, &c., shipped on board the Leonidas in the river Plate, and on the same or the returns thereof, as interest might appear, in any description of merchandise," &c. Lord Tenterden held, that under a policy so framed the assured could not recover, in addition to what is usually recoverable as the value of goods in an open policy, the sum paid at Canton, under the charter-party, for the expenses of shipping the homeward cargo. (h) His Lordship, however, in the course of the argument, intimated that, although such sum could not be recovered under a mere policy on merchandise, yet it might have been insured as money paid for shipment of goods to be transported to Buenos Ayres (i); and, in delivering the judgment of the court, he said, "We have no doubt that these payments might have been made the subject of a special and distinct insurance.”(i) (9) Palmer v. Pratt, 2 Bingh. 185. A strong decision, for the underwriter was fully informed of the real facts as to the drawing and payment of the bills: and see this case, post, Chap. X. on Insurable Interest. Q (h) Winter v. Haldimand, 2 B. & Ad. 649. (i) Ibid. 654. surance. A policy “on specie and returns" will not cover a sum the charterer advanced by for the expenses cargo. of shipping the homeward Winter v. Hal& Ad. 649. dimand, 2 B. Description of the subject insured in the policy. Although the subject matter of the insurance must be de scribed in the ART. 7. The Nature and Extent of the Interest of the Assured in the Subject of Insurance need not be specified. § 104. Although, however, as we have seen, a policy must in all cases state correctly, and in some specifically, what is insured; there is no authority for saying that the reason why policy, the na- the party insures should also be expressed in the policy. The true proposition is, "that, although the subject matter of the insurance must be properly described, the nature of the interest may in general be left at large." (k) ture and extent of the interest need not. In the same way the extent of the interest of the party insuring need never be specified in the policy, for it is a well established rule that a party interested only to a certain extent in property which he owns in common with others, may effect insurance generally without specifying his interest, and will recover for such interest as he has. (1) Thus, one of several part-cwners of a ship may insure the freight generally without specifying what share he has in the ship, and he may declare generally and recover for such interest as he has. (m) The above positions have received abundant illustration in the jurisprudence of this country and the United States. Thus, with regard to the nature of the interest, Lord Mansfield, in the case of Glover v. Black, after deciding solely on the ground of the usage of merchants to that effect, that the interest of the lender on bottomry and respondentia must be specifically described in the policy, adds, "But we by no incans say that under an insurance on goods at large, a man may not be permitted to give in evidence a mortgage or other special lien." (n) "I admit," says Mr. J. Park, "that a party who has only a special interest in goods may recover, in respect of that interest, on a general insurance.” (o) (k) Per Lord Tenterden in Crowley v. Cohen, 3 B. & Ad. 485. (1) The principle is laid down by Emerigon, chap. x. sect. 1. vol. i. p. 299. ed. 1827, and is confirmed by numerous illustrations in the jurispru dence of England and the United States. (m) Rising v. Bennett, 2 Marshall on Ins. 736. (n) Glover v. Black, 1 W. Bl. 423. See also 3 Burr. 1401. (0) Palmer ». Pratt, 2 Bingh. 192. the subject had an insura ble interest on a cargo on three One of the first cases, in direct illustration of this point, is Description of that of Carruthers v. Shedden, in which it appeared that a insured in the general insurance" on coffee" had been effected by a London policy. broker, "by order and for account of N. D. & Co.," a London A party who mercantile firm, who were interested as part-owners with others in seven-tenths of the coffee, but who had also an insurable interest in the whole of it, as consignees of the cargo, and as having a lien on the whole for advances: the court held that, under the general form of policy, N. D. and Co. might protect any or all of these different species of interest; that the nature of the several interests need not be expressed in the policy; and that the assured were not bound to elect on which they would proceed. (p) Upon the same principle a general policy "on goods" (q) has been held sufficient to cover the interest of carriers on goods entrusted to their care, so as to protect them against loss arising from damage done to such property by the perils insured against, whereby they were obliged to make compensation to the owners, and were, besides, put to other expenses. (r) It was objected that such a policy could not cover such an interest, since it merely purported to protect goods against the usual risks to which the owners of goods are liable; whereas, the loss alleged was one arising out of plaintiff's liability to a risk to which carriers are liable. But the court, although Lord Tenterden admitted that it might have been better if the policy had expressly shown that the object was to indemnify the plaintiffs as carriers, were yet unanimously of opinion that it was sufficient in its present (p) Carruthers v. Shedden, 6 Taunt. 114. S. C. 1 Marshall, 416. tween London, Wolverhampton, and (4) The policy which was intended to cover the interest of plaintiffs, as barge-owners, in the property carried to and fro for hire in their barges for a year, was a common printed form of policy on ship and goods, filled up and altered in a very clumsy manner so as to adapt it to the object in view; by it the plaintiffs were insured for twelve months "by canal navigation- 478. boats, containing goods, at work be (r) Crowley v. Cohen, 3 B. & Ad. different grounds, was recover a loss under a general policy on goods," &c. without specifying therein held entitled to the nature of any one of his interests. So,a general policy "on goods" "will protect the in terest of carriers of the goods, |