Such a payment and considered as part of, the price of the goods. Our opinion in this case will have no effect on the question, whether the payment on the shipment of goods can be added to their price, so as to form part of their value in an open policy, if ever that question should arise. 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 having them taken to the place of their destination: it relates specially and distinctly to the goods; and when it is constantly made, according to the usage of the trade, from and to any particular country, the usage may be supposed to be known to the underwriters, and may be (but we do not say that it will be, or ought to be) considered as part of the shipping charges, or, at least, as so analogous to as to be governed by the rule that is applicable to those charges in the construction of the policy." The same doctrine was held in the case of Palmer and others v. Pratt (a). Where a merchant advanced money to the captain of a ship, to pay for goods he was about to carry to India, on the security of two bills of exchange, payable on the contingency of his arrival there, and the merchant effected an insurance on the "ship and cargo," declared by the policy to be on the bills in question: it was held that, first, he could not recover, because the bills being on a contingency, were not valid: and, secondly, because he had not an insurable interest, but had a remedy over against the party for whose use the money was lent. SECTION V. AND ALSO UPON THE BODY, TACKLE, APPAREL, ORDNANCE, ETC., OF THE "GOOD" SHIP CALLed, etc. Having in the previous section discussed the law relating to the words "on any kind of goods and merchandises" (a) 2 Bing. 185. stated in the policy, and having pointed out the species of property which come under the general, and common, and usual form of the printed policy on "goods," and likewise the instances in which the subject-matter of the insurance must be specially stated, and "declared on" the face of the policy, and having entered at considerable length upon the nature and quantity of "interest" the assured must have in the subject-matter of the assurance; and also having stated the law on the important subject, where the statute law has interfered in the case of "wager" policies, and policies "on interest or no interest," or without further proof of interest, than the policy, "by way of gaming, or wagering, and without benefit of salvage;❞ and has enacted, that all insurances at this day, contrary to the stat. 19 Geo. 2, c. 37, are absolutely void and of no effect: we now come to a very important head, viz.:— on the body, &c., of the ship, and the master of the ship, 1. The names for the voyage." Firstly, we shall speak of the names of the of the ship and ship" and "master." This is expressed in the policy, in the following terms-" and also upon the body, tackle, apparel, ordnance, munition, artillery, boat, and other furniture of, and in the good ship called the, whereof is master under God, for this present voyage-or whosoever else shall go for master in the said ship, or by whatsoever other name or names the said ship (a) or the master thereof, shall be named and called." master. By the usage and practice of merchants, the 66 It seems to be necessary by the custom, and practice of merchants, that the names of the "ship" and "master" should be inserted in the policy, in order that the assurers may know with certainty the strength, age, and sufficiency of the inserted in the ship, and the skill and knowledge of the captain. The usage same in respect to the rules in Foreign Sometimes there are insurances "upon should be policy. in this matter is the any ship or ships" expected from a particular place. And Mr. J. Park says, in his treatise (c), "that although it is (a) See 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 55, s. 24. rance, art. 3. Ord. of Amster. s. 2. (c) Park Ins. p. 19. more accurate to insert the name of the captain, he would not be understood to assert, as no decision has been made, that if a different captain came in the ship from that whose name is mentioned in the policy, it would therefore be bad, especially as the policy contains the words, "or whosoever else shall go for master in the said ship." And it has been decided in a case of Le Mesurier v. Vaughan (a), that an insurance would not be vitiated if the name of the "ship" was mistaken, provided the identity was proved, and where there was no fraud; for, as policies contain in the printed form, "or by whatsoever name the ship should be called "-those words are not confined to the case of the ship having another name, than that mentioned in the policy. The above case was on an insurance on "goods," described by the policy to be on board the "American ship President;" the real name being "The President;" but the broker having been directed, that the ship was named "President," and to designate her as an American ship, had by mistake described her as above. The Court were of opinion that the whole was to be taken as her name, and not as a warranty of "her being an American ship" called "The President." And it was also held to be no variance, that the real name of the ship was "The President," the identity of the ship with that name being proved, and no fraud in the transaction. And in delivering his opinion, Mr. J. Lawrence read a note of a case, decided by Lord C. J. Lee, at Guildhall, exactly in point (b). A mistake in the name of the ship will not vitiate the policy, if the identity be proved. The insurance in that case was made "on The Leopard, or whatsoever name, &c., whereof was master, A. B., for that voyage, &c., "or whosoever else should be master." Upon the evidence of A. B., it appeared that this ship was called The Leonard, and was never called The Leopard. But the Lord Chief Justice was of opinion, that it was only necessary to prove the indentity: which had been done by Captain A. B. Also an insurance may be made on "ship or ships" "from An insurance (a) 6 East, 382. (b) Hall v. Molineux, Dec. 1744, at Guild. 6 East, 386. G may be made on "ship or 2. "Boat" of the "ship" a particular place." This was held, in the case of Kewley and another v. Ryan (a). The case was this: "an insurance is made on certain goods on board a certain ship on a voyage, at and from Grenada to England;" and another policy is also made "on any kinds of goods as interest, should appear on board ship or ships,' on the same voyage:" warranted to sail within a limited time; but no circumstances relating to the first policy are communicated to the underwriters of the second, nor do they know that the first was made. Goods to the full amount of the sum insured by the first policy, are put on board the specified ship, which arrives in safety. Also goods to the full amount of the sum insured in the second policy, were put on board another ship which sails within the limited time from Grenada, with an intention of touching at Cork on her way to Liverpool; and is lost before she arrives at the deviating point. The plaintiffs obtained a verdict for the second insurance which had been made. At the argument upon the rule for a new trial, it seemed that at the trial great doubts were entertained whether such a policy as this on "ship or ships" were a good one. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that these were well known to foreign nations (b): and were constantly used by us in the West India trade in time of war, when it was uncertain by what ships the produce of the different islands might be sent to Europe. Mr. J. Buller cited the case of Henchman v. Offley (c), in confirmation of the doctrine, that the assured had a right to appropriate: the Court took time to consider the question. And afterwards in Trin. Term, 1794, the Court, consisting of Lord Loughborough, C. J., Mr. J. Heath, Mr. J. Rooke (d), declared their opinion as to the legality of the policy on "ship or ships," that it was too well established by usage and authority to be disputed. Rule discharged. Secondly, a question respecting the carrying the "boat of (a) 2 H. B. 343. (b) Emerig. 173. (c) B. R. Mich. 23 Geo. 3, H. B. 345, n. (d) J. Buller was absent, but concurred in the judgment. the ship and the practice in what manner, in some voyages, the boats may be placed on the ship," was one of the points in the case of Blackett v. Royal Exchange Assurance Company (a). It was an action of covenant on a policy of assurance, on the ship" Thames, her tackle, apparel, ordnance, munition, boat, and other furniture," in the usual form. At the trial before Vaughan, B., at the Sit. in London, the plaintiffs having proved the loss of a boat, which, with other damage subsequently incurred by stress of weather, amounted to more than 3 per cent. within the memorandum, the plaintiffs proved that it was considered proper and necessary to sling the boats on the outside the ship, in voyages of the description of the insured. The defendants offered evidence of a usage, that boats slung on the outside of the ship on the quarter, were not protected by the policy. the learned Baron was of opinion, that such evidence of usage was inadmissible, and rejected it. The plaintiffs had a verdict, with leave given to the defendants to move on the rejection of the evidence of usage. Lord Lyndhurst, C. B., now in Hil. Term, 1832, delivered the judgment of the Court. "There were two questions," (one of which we have only at present to consider)" one, whether parol evidence of an usage was admissible to show, that for boats on the outside of the ship, slung upon the quarters, underwriters never paid?" The policy is in the usual form, and as far as regards the ship, imports to be upon the ship (that is, the body), tackle, apparel, ordnance, munition, boat, and other furniture of the ship, called "The Thames." There is no exception, and the policy is, therefore, upon the face of it, upon the "whole ship, on all her furniture, and on all of her apparel." It was in evidence in the cause and admitted upon argument, that upon such voyages as that insured, ships invariably carry a boat in the place where this boat was carried, and slung as this boat was slung; and that the ship would not be properly furnished or equipped, unless she had a boat in that (a) 2 Cr. & J. 244; 2 Tyr. 266. |