Imágenes de páginas

Magens, reviewing these latter provisions [1755], did not consider them satisfactory; and thought it would have been better if the regulations of France or Spain had been followed.

In 1746 was passed the stat. 19 Geo. II. c. 37: An Act to regulate ins. on ships belonging to the subjects of Gt. Brit., and on merchandizes or effects laden thereon, which provided as follows:

V. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after the said 1st day of August [1746] all and every sum or sums of money to be lent on B. or R., upon any ship or ships belonging to any of His Majesty's subjects, bound to or from the East Indies, shall be lent only on the ship or on the merchandize or effects laden or to be laden on board of such ship as shall be so expressed in the conditions of the bond; and the benefit of salvage shall be allowed to the lender, his agents, or assigns, who alone shall have a right to make assu. on the money so lent; and no borrower of money on B. or at R., as aforesaid, shall recover more on any assu. than the value of his interest in the ship, or in the merchandizes or effects laden on board such ship, or in the merchandizes or effects laden on board exclusive of the money so borrowed; and in case it shall appear that the value of his share in the ship, or in the merchandizes or effects laden on board, doth not amount to the full sum or sums he hath borrowed as aforesaid, such borrower shall be responsible to the lender for so much of the money borrowed as he hath not laid out on the ship or merchandizes laden thereon, with lawful int. for the same, together with the assu. and all other charges thereon, in the proportion the money not laid out shall bear to the whole money lent, notwithstanding the ship and merchandizes be totally lost. It would seem that the preceding regulations were not of general application, but were intended to apply only to ships sailing to the East Indies. Lord Tenterden indeed declared that this Statute was introduced for the protection of the trade of the East India Co. The Act had not in other respects such a limited scope. It was provided (sec. vi.), that in all actions brought after the commencement of that Act, the plaintiff should state, within 15 days after being required to do so, what sums he had ins. upon the whole, and what sums he had borrowed upon R. or B., for the voyage or any part of the voyage in question.

In the same year (1746) an Act was passed, 19 Geo. II. c. 32, to amend the laws relating to bankrupts, which recites :

And whereas merchants and other traders frequently lend money on B. or at R., and in the course of their trade frequently cause their ships or vessels, and the goods and merchandizes loaded thereon, to be ins., and where commissions in bankruptcy have issued against the obligor in such B. or R., or the underwriter or assurer in such assu., before the loss of the ship or goods, in such bond or pol. of ins. mentioned, it hath been made a question, whether the obligee or obligees in such bond, or the assurer in such pol. of ins., should be let in to prove their debts, or be admitted to have any benefit or dividend under such commission, which may be a discouragement to trade. For remedy whereof be it enacted, etc., that from and after the said 29th day of October [1746] the obligee in any B. or R. B., and the assured in any pol. of ins., made and entered into upon a good and valuable consideration, bona fide, shall be admitted to claim: and after the loss or contingency shall have happened, to prove his, her, or their debt and demands, in respect of such bond or pol. of ins. in like manner as if the loss or contingency had happened before the time of the issuing of the commission of bankruptcy against such obligor or insurer.

And they were to receive their proportionate dividend.

By the 21 Geo. II. c. 4, 1748—An Act to prohibit assu. on ships belonging to France, and on merchandizes or effects laden therein during the present war with France-all His Majesty's subjects were prohibited from lending money on B., or R., on any ships or goods belonging to France, or to any of the French dominions or plantations, or the subjects thereof; and all such contracts and agreements were to be void, and the parties, and any agent or broker intervening therein, were to forfeit £500.

In the Ins. Ordin. of the City of Stockholm, 1750, among the things permitted to be ins. against are B., Cambio Marino, etc.; and among the forms of pol. ordered to be printed in the Swedish language is one for such risks; but we find no regulations otherwise regarding B. The form of pol. so much resembles that already given for Hamburg [1731), that we need not insert it. Two p.c. was to be deducted by the insurers in case of total loss; and they held themselves free from all averages and charges arising from demurrage. In 1750 Wyndham Beawes pub. his Lex Mercatoria Rediviva, etc. He deals with the subject of B.; but we do not find any views of the subject not already presented by other writers.

In the leading case of Chesterfield v. Janssen, which came before the Courts in 1750, and which will be more especially referred to under USURY, Mr. Justice Burnett said that "the true reason why the Court holds B. B. good is because they are not against the Statute, as by a hazard he runs, he may be entitled neither to principal nor int." And Chief Justice Lee said on the same occasion: "Bottomry bonds are held good, not because they are for the benefit of trade, but because the whole is at hazard.”

But it seems clear that it is not the mere form of B. B. that keeps them out of the Statute, for the matter was put as follows in the last-named case: Suppose a contract was made for a ship's return to Newcastle from Lond., or to Dover from Calais, at a season of the year when there is little or no danger, would not the Courts look at this as colourable and a mere evasion of the Statute? And in the case of Joy v. Kent it appears very plainly from what the Court said there, that even a B. B. may be an evasion of the Statute as well as any other contract, or Lord Justice Hale would never have sent it for trial.-Plowden.

By the 25 Geo. II. c. 26, 1752, it was prohibited to make ins. or to lend money on B., or R., on foreign ships, or goods, bound to or from the East Indies. This Act, like that

of 1746, was designed to secure the monopoly of the East India Co., by preventing ordinary marine ins. or B. ins. from being effected on the ships of any other co., or on merchandize carried by any such ships.

In 1755 Mr. Nicolas Magens pub. his famous Essay on Insurances [first ed. pub. in Hamburg, 1753], and therein he observes :

Ins. is everywhere allowed to be made on money lent on B., that is (as was before observed), on the keel or bottom of a ship; or on certain goods specified and shipped on such a bottom (which we understand by the term Respondentia), and for which money usually a bond is given by the borrower, wherein are set forth the conditions of the loan, and what prem. is paid for it. This prem. is something more than the common int. of money, with the add. of a prem. of ins. In consideration of it, the lender takes on him the sea-risk of the ship, or goods, on which he has lent his money, and so is in fact an insurer to the borrower; and if he causes himself to be ins. it is as a re-insurance. The insurers must be governed, in these cases, by the usual custom of such contracts in the countries where they are made, which greatly differ.

These differences we have already shown. It is important to note from so great an authority as Magens that the nature of the contract of B. was still preserved intact. Cunningham, in his Law of Bills of Exchange, pub. 1759, says if the B. loan be not repaid, "the lender shall have the ship;" but we assume this would be true only to the extent of realizing his advance. He objects to the term Usura Marina, for "notwithstanding the interest in these contracts is always much larger than the Law prescribes for money lent on landed securities, yet it is never accounted usury; as marine loans are furnished at the hazard of the lender, which the others are not; and where the risk is greatest to the advanced monies, the profit ought in reason to be so too." Again, money lent on B. is commonly on the ship only, though sometimes it is upon the person of the borrower, and sometimes on both."

[ocr errors]

Valin, in his famous Commentary on the French Ins. Ordin., pub. 1760, says that some writers of the French nation had supposed that this contract was wholly unknown to the ancients, and that it was peculiar to France alone: a view in which he did not agree. He says, in this same commentary, "A B. contract, and a pol. of ins., as depending on the same principles, are subject to the same risks, consequently to all the same averages: and the insurer, being in the place of the lender on B., is equally entitled to share in case of salvage."

In the case of Glover v. Black, 1763, the facts were as follow: A pol. of ins. was made 16th Dec., 1760, on goods and merchandizes loaden or to be loaden on board the ship called the Denham, whereof Wm. Tryon was master, "at and from Bengal to any ports or places whatsoever in the East Indies until her safe arrival in Lond.," which pol. was underwritten by the defendant Black for £200 at 10 p. c. prem. Before the underwriting of the pol., the plaintiff Glover had lent to the master of the ship £764 at Respondentia, for which R. bond was executed by the captain and another. The ship, and all her cargo, were burnt on 31st March, 1760, within the limits insured. The plaintiff asserted that Respondentia was an interest that might be ins. The defendant admitted that upon an East India voyage there were five things which might be ins., viz. Goods, Respondentia, Bottomree, Freight, and the ship itself, but it was absolutely necessary that each interest be specifically mentioned in the pol. In this case the R. interest was not so mentioned. Lord Mansfield delivered judgment:-The Court were satisfied of its being a fair ins.; but there was the omission to specify the interest ins. He said, it was estab. now, as the law and practice of merchants, that both R. and B. must be mentioned and specified in the pol. The plaintiff was therefore nonsuited.

It was in the course of this judgment that Lord Mansfield said: "I have looked into the practice, and I find that bottomry and respondentia are a particular kind of ins. in themselves, and have taken a particular denomination."

In 1775 Mr. Thomas Parker pub., The Laws of Shipping and Ins., with a Digest of the Adjudged Cases; in which he gives an outline of the legal aspect of many questions arising under B. contracts; but several of the more remarkable of these we have noticed already.

In 1781 John Weskett, Merchant, pub. A Complete Digest of the Theory, Laws, and Practice of Ins. ; wherein he says, "B. contracts have everywhere been made use of long before ins. In former times they were made only on the body and keel of the ship.” He reviews the practice in other countries, and then adds, "As then we have no fixed laws or rules, universally known in England for settling partial losses on B. monies, it is the business of the parties to consider what accidents they are exposed to, and to have provisions made in their B. B., expressed in a clear and distinct manner how they are to be understood." He adds:

This branch of business is best understood in Spain. The great sums that are required to fit out a ship for the Spanish West Indies, and for obtaining a licence from Court to go with register, rendering it necessary to borrow money on B. on almost every such expedition; and the variation of many circumstances which occur, teaches their notaries to provide in their contracts for things that people in other countries do not think of. We find in their form of bond this condition expressed: that the lender shall run, in partnership with the owner, "the risk on the hull, keel, and earnings of the ship" -which is saying a great deal in few words.

Pothier, who wrote a learned work on Contracts towards the close of the last century (1781), devoted a chap. to contracts of marine ins., including B. He strongly advocated the legality of the contracts of B. and R.

Emerigon, in his learned Treatise on Assu., pub. 1783, took the same view as Pothier regarding the legality of the contract of B. His reasoning is at once clear, learned, and conclusive:

All our authors agree that the contract of maritime loan is lawful. It has been authorized by the Ordin. [of France]. It has a character and nature proper to it. I lend to Pierre 1000 crowns at a maritime int. of 12 p.c. for a voyage. If the voyage is fortunate, he is to repay me the principal and the stipulated int. If the vessel perishes, Pierre is discharged from the whole obligation. My capital then is at risk. I wish to have it insured. It is apparent that this ins. cannot be subs. by the borrower himself; for it is only in consideration of the maritime risk, from which he is discharged, that he has promised me an int. of 12 p.c. more or less. If he should become my insurer, the essence of the contract would be destroyed between him and me; and it would be only a masked usury.

But nothing prevents my effecting ins. on my cap. with a third party. This injures in no respect the principles of my contract with Pierre. In case of safe return, I shall have my cap. and the int.; but I shall lose the prem. earned by the insurer. If the vessel perishes, I lose the maritime int., and the insurer will reimburse to me my cap., less the prem., and also the tenth. [Under the Maritime Ordin. of France ins. might only be made for nine-tenths of the value.] One cannot discover in all this any trace either of usury or of unlawful agreement. Such is the doctrine of the authors cited, and also of Ansaldus and Scaccia.

It is a species of re-insurance to which the lender has recourse, to remove from himself to a third party the maritime risks for which he is bound towards the borrower. Here is a case however not exempt from doubt: I advance you on maritime loan 100 crowns on condition that if the ship perishes you shall repay me one-half of this sum; but if the ship arrives you shall pay me my entire cap., and 20 p.c. maritime int. Silvestre maintains this contract to be usurious, because one and the same person cannot be borrower and insurer for the same object. Roccas says, on the contrary, that the contract is lawful, because the perils become common to both parties: Quia uterque se exponit incommodo.

I do not believe such a doctrine has been adopted among us. The nature of the contract is opposed to it. It would be intolerable that the borrower, who, by the shipwreck, has lost all that he had in the ship, should remain debtor for part of a debt, on which the maritime int. had been stipulated in consideration of the maritime risks to which the lender is subjected by force of law. It is quite enough that the latter is permitted to effect ins. on his cap.

In different countries of Italy it is permitted to advance sums on maritime loan, with the clause voto per pieno [empty for full], that is to say, with agreement that if the ship arrives safe, the cap. and the maritime int. shall be paid to the lender, though the borrower may have laden nothing on board; and that in the contrary case, the borrower shall be released from all obligation; this is a species of wager. If the lender has effected ins. on his cap., and the ship on which the borrower has laden nothing perish, the insurers will be discharged, unless, says Casaregis, the ins. has been made in form of wager; which, he adds, is forbidden in Genoa.

In Italy the lender may effect ins. not only on his cap., but also on the maritime int. . . . Although the decision in Glover v. Black has always been upheld, yet in a subsequent case before Lord Mansfield-Gregory v. Christie-decided in 1784, it was ruled that money expended by the captain for the use of the ship, and for which respondentia int. was charged, might be recovered under an ins. in "goods, specie, and effects," provided the usage of the trade, which in matters of ins. is always of great weight, sanctions it. This case was an action upon a pol. of ins. on "goods, specie, and effects," of the plaintiff who was also the captain, on board the ship; the plaintiff claimed under that ins. money expended by him in the course of the voyage for the use of the ship, and for which he charged respondentia int. Lord Mansfield said to the question whether the words "goods, specie, and effects," extended to this interest, I "should think not, if we were to consider only the words made use of. But here is an express usage which must govern our decision. A great many captains in the East India service swear that this kind of interest is always ins. in this kind of way. I observe the person ins. here is the captain."

In 1786 Del Signor Baldasseroni pub., in Florence, his famous work on Maritime Ins., B., and R., in which was given a collection of the then recent decisions of the Rota Romana, and of the Civil Courts of Genoa, Pisa, and Florence. The learned author was Judge of the Revenue Court of Leghorn.

In 1787 Mr. James Allan Park pub. his well-known work, A System of the Law of Marine Ins., with Three Chaps. on B., etc. This learned writer, following Pothier, says: The contract of which we treat is of a different nature from almost all others; but that which it most resembles is the contract of ins.; for the lender at B. or R. runs almost all the same risks with respect to the property on which the loan is made that the insurer does with respect to the effects insured. There are, however, some considerable distinctions; for instance, the lender supplies the borrower with money to purchase those effects upon which he is to run the risk; not so with the insurer. There are also various other distinctions.

But however similar they may be in other respects, they differ very much in point of antiquity. We have formerly endeavoured to show that the contract of ins. was certainly unknown to the traders of the ancient world; but it is equally clear that with the contract of B. or R., or what was equivalent to it, they were perfectly acquainted.

Speaking of the differences between B. and R., and recognizing the distinction we have already laid down, viz. that the former is an advance upon the ship, the latter upon the goods, he adds:

But in all other respects the contract of B. and R. are upon the same footing; the rules and decisions applicable to one are applicable to both; and therefore in the course of our inquiries, they shall be treated as one and the same thing, it being sufficient to have once marked the distinction between them.

After reviewing various authorities, Park says, "It is of the essence of the contract of B., that the lender run the risk of the voyage; and that both principal and int. be at hazard; for if the risk go only to the int., or prem., and not to the principal also, though a real and substantial risk be inserted, it is a contract against the Statutes of Usury, and therefore void."

About 1790 Mr. [afterwards Lord] Erskine pub. his Reflections, wherein he ingeniously

accounted for the excessive int. upon these bonds being allowable upon the grounds of trade :

On this principle alone the law allows pol. of ins., bonds on respondentia, and on ships and their cargoes. Exceptions to the general rate of int., founded on the truest spirit of commerce, and therefore vacated on the shadow of injustice or oppression, their end not being to permit artful and enterprising men to grow rich at the expense of fools, or the profligate to riot in misfortune, but to share the burden of human losses among a number, which in great concerns would oppress and ruin individuals; to bid defiance to the elements, the waves, and every accident of life, and by a prudent communication of a share of prosperity, to avoid the possibility of poverty.

Englebrecht, in his Corpus juris nautici, pub. at Lubeck, in 1790, considered that B. loans might be divided into four classes: I. Where the owner of the ship procures the loan before he has ins. 2. Where the party going on a distant voyage is compelled to sell or pledge goods on B. 3. Where the master to repair the damages sustained by the vessel is compelled to take up money on ship and cargo-the whole being previously ins. 4. Where, in a strange port, for prosecution of the voyage, and for the benefit of the ship alone, without the responsibility of the shippers, the master takes up money when the ship is ins. more practical.

These distinctions are too fanciful. Those of Benecke [1824] are much

As an indication of the niceties which arise under B. loans, we may take the following: If money be lent on ship-board by a merchant or passenger, and before the day of payment the ship happens to be cast away; if there be such a saver as will admit of a contribution, the party lending is not to have his whole money, but it shall come into the average; because if that money had not been so lent, it would have been in common danger with the rest; but if the time appointed were past before the misfortune happened, then the borrower must repay the lender his whole money free from contribution. Therefore many of the Ins. Ordin. provide that in case the borrower detains any money thus lent beyond the appointed time for the repayment, he shall on his return from the voyage not only pay the profit agreed on before, but be also obliged to augment the same according to the longer time accrued since the day of payment.-Chambers.

In 1796 Mr. Francis Plowden pub. his able Treatise upon the Law of Usury and Annu.; wherein he says:

All cases of B. are grounded upon the reality of the hazard, and therefore are not within the Statutes of Usury, and the excessive int. that is allowed to be taken upon such contracts is not permitted in favour of trade, but for the reason already mentioned, and because there are not words in the statutes that reach B. B. This doctrine was most expressly recognized in the famous case of Chesterfield v. Janssen.

In 1802 Mr. Samuel Marshall, Serjeant-at-Law, pub. A Treatise on the Law of Marine Ins., B., and R. These latter subjects were treated of more completely than by any former legal writer here. We can only notice a few points:

Formerly the practice of borrowing money on B. was more general in this country than it is at present. The immense capitals now engaged in every branch of commerce render such loans unnecessary; and money is now seldom borrowed in this manner, but by the masters of foreign ships, who put into our ports in need of pecuniary assistance to refit, to pay their men, to purchase provisions, etc. Sometimes officers and others belonging to ships engaged in long voyages, who have liberty of trading to a certain extent, with the prospect of great profit, but without capitals of their own to employ in such trade, take up money on R. to make their investments; but even this, as I am informed, is not now very frequently done in this country.


This contract is of great utility in a country where the persons engaged in trade have not a sufficient cap. to carry on their foreign commerce, by inducing those unskilled in trade to embark their money in it; and thus is formed a sort of partnership between the lender and the borrower, in which the one supplies cap., the other skill and experience; the one takes upon himself the perils of the sea, and the other compensates by a share of the profits of the adventure. But except in this respect, this contract has no resemblance to a regular partnership-having in it no community of cap., no community of loss.

The analogy between this contract and that of ins. is much stronger. In the one the lender, in the other the insurer, is liable to the perils of the sea; the one receives the marine int., the other the prem., as the price of the risk, which varies in each according to the length and dangers of the voyage. The lender and insurer are in general exposed to the same perils, which have the same commencement and end. Both are entitled to the benefit of salvage, and liable to general average. The marine int., like the prem. of ins., is not due if no risk be run; though this be prevented by the voluntary act of the borrower.

Again :

The author of Le Guidon says that there is but little resemblance between the contract of B. as in use in modern Europe, and the Naticum fænus of the Romans. But with all due deference for the learned author of that treatise, it seems to me that, upon an attentive comparison of the one with the other, it will be found that they are still, in principle, the same; and only differ in the forms which modern regulations have given to the contract now in use.

A person indebted to the owners of a vessel cannot lend money to her master on B. He should satisfy his debt, and there would be no necessity for the loan.

The master cannot hypothecate the ship for a debt of his own, nor for a debt incurred in a previous voyage.

Then arises a question of International Law:

In a former part of this work it was shown that no Brit. subject can legally trade with the enemies of the State in time of war; and therefore an ins. upon such trading is void. It was also shown that the ins. of ships and effects of the enemy has, on several occasions, been prohibited by statute; and many arguments and authorities have been adduced to prove that, even at Common Law, such ins. are illegal. It is needless to repeat those arguments here, every one of which applies with equal, if not greater force, to prove that the lending money to the enemy upon B. is illegal, if not highly criminal.

Finally :

It is a general rule of maritime law that money may be lent on B. or R., on any object which may be the subject-matter of ins. It may be lent on the body, tackle, furniture, provisions, and freight of the ship; upon all or any part of the cargo on board; or upon ship, freight, and cargo.

In 1802, also, Mr. Charles Abbott [afterwards Lord Chief Justice Tenterden] pub. A Treatise of the Law relative to Merchant Ships and Seamen; and therein he treats incidentally of B. and R.

In this same year there was before our Admiralty Court the case of the Hamburg ship Jacob. The question was whether the freight of a subsequent voyage was liable to be attached for a B. B. Sir William Scott (afterwards Lord Stowell) decreed the freight to the claimant; desiring however to be understood, as laying down no general rule for all circumstances, and all cases, where any third party may have become interested in the freight of the subsequent voyage. Most writers, as we have seen, have affirmed that this could not be done.

This learned Judge remarked on this occasion, "The disposition of this Court would certainly be to uphold the efficacy of bonds of this nature, as far as is consistent with law. They are bonds of great sanctity, and highly necessary in mercantile affairs."

In 1808 Mr. Annesley pub. A Compendium of the Law of Marine Ins., Bottomry, etc. This work is one which the reader may always consult with advantage. We do not however discover anything new on this subject.

In 1824 Mr. Wm. Benecké, of Lloyd's, pub. A Treatise on the Principles of Indemnity in Marine Ins., Bottomry, and Respondentia; and in the Practical Application of those Principles in Effecting such Contracts, and in the Adjustment of all Claims arising out of them. The work is regarded as of the very highest authority; and on the subject of B. it is eminently practical, as the following passages will show :

It frequently occurs that the master of a vessel is under the necessity of borrowing money abroad for the purposes of the voyage. If this happens at a place where the owner of the vessel has friends or correspondents, the master applies to them first, and they usually furnish him with the money required, for which they draw bills, including commission and int., either on the owner or on such other house as he may direct. The money thus expended for repairs, for expenses of liberating the ship or the cargo, would be entirely lost, over and above the orig. value of the thing for which it was laid out, if the vessel, etc., happened to be entirely lost on the continuation of the voyage. To guard against losses of this kind the ins, of money expended, etc., has been introduced. But if either the correspondents refuse to advance the money, or if it be wanted at a place where the master is not able to raise it upon bills, he is often reduced to the necessity of mortgaging, according to circumstances, either the vessel, or the vessel and cargo, which is called taking money on B.

The lender in B. pays no regard to the personal credit of the borrower, but looks upon the thing hypothecated as his only security. . . .

The necessity for borrowing money on B. may also originate in causes different from that before described. The master may want money in an intermediate port for purposes unconnected with the orig. adventure; or at the place of destination for fitting out his vessel for a new voyage....

Bottomry may be considered as entirely distinct from ins.... Yet in the present state of commerce a competent knowledge of the one necessarily includes that of the other. B. is frequently taken either partly or entirely on account of the underwriters, who, therefore, ought to know the nature of this contract. ...

The following is a point to which the attention of the reader of this paper should be especially drawn :

If we consider the different purposes for which money may be taken on B., we shall soon perceive that this contract is not always founded on the same basis-but that there are different kinds of B., which by their nature ought to be differently treated. Most of the authors, however, who have endeavoured to explain this important subject, do not make those necessary and highly important distinctions, but steak of B. as if one kind only existed. The same remark applies to the laws of all maritime nations, which apply the same rules indiscriminately to all kinds of B. The only way of explaining this singular fact is, that the different kinds of B. were not in use at the same time in any country; and that each legislator only had that kind in view which was peculiarly known to him. To this branch he adopted his rules exclusively, and in process of time those rules were indiscriminately applied to B. in general. This alone can account for the astonishing variety in the laws respecting this subject, which are absolutely contradictory to each other.

Under these circumstances the B. transactions could not but remain in a state of great imperfection This is so much the case that even the best informed and most judicious merchants consider this to be amongst the most difficult and abstruse parts of mercantile knowledge. It is principally owing to this uncertainty and obscurity of laws and principles concerning this branch of bus. that marine int. has arisen to such an enormous height-that B., instead of facilitating navigation and commerce, as it ought to do, is become an intolerable burden to them; for it is but natural that the lender on B., finding himself subject to be treated in different ways, should contemplate the worst case to which he can possibly be exposed, and stipulate for the prem. accordingly.

He considers the two main distinctions in the B. loan to be these: 1. Where the money taken on B is to be used for the benefit of those for whom the loan is contracted, without increasing the orig. value of the thing hypothecated. 2. Where the money taken on B. is used to increase the value of the thing hypothecated. He supports this position by reasoning, of which the following is an abstract: Every B. concerns either the ship alone, or the ship and cargo together, or the cargo alone. Other cases cannot occur. Money taken on B. of the ship alone at the port of departure by the owners, whether for the completion or victualling of the ship, belongs clearly to the second class. Money taken on B. of the ship at a port of necessity, for repairs or expenses of claim upon capture, cannot increase the orig. value, and therefore belongs to the first class. Money taken on B. of the ship at the port of destination, according as it is to be applied to repairs, to victualling, or improving the ship for a new voyage, belongs ether to the first or the second class. Money

« AnteriorContinuar »