Surplus provisions. Provisions and provender. Premiums. to sea perils, and consequently invalid. But this other sentence followed: "In case of loss, the part saved to be sold or appraised for the benefit of the underwriters." The Court, regarding the whole in the light of these latter words, held that it was a policy on the cable, and that the assured, under the circumstances, was entitled to recover for an average loss if above 3 per cent.' 2 Suppose the provisions of a ship for her ordinary crew laid in double, for reasons either of economy or necessity, and a total loss of ship and provisions soon after starting on her outward voyage,-are the underwriters liable, under a policy on ship, for the whole of the provisions also? Provisions for the voyage insured are covered by a policy on ship, that we have already seen; they are part of the instrumental means of earning the pending freight, which, in case of abandonment, falls to the underwriter on ship.3 That ground, however, will not bear a claim for provisions which are superfluous for the voyage in the policy. The provisions in excess are cargo, which the underwriter on ship has therefore nothing to do with. The same line of demarcation excludes provisions for passengers from the protection of a policy on ship only, notwithstanding they are incidental to the earning of passage money. Yet, as even live stock cannot be insured as cargo, nor the provender necessary for it, the more proper course appears to be to insure provisions for passengers and provender for live stock, eo nomine. We shall see when we come to consider the mode of valuing cargo for the purposes of insurance, that premiums form a proper item of the insured value of the subject of the policy.' Nature and extent of the interest need not be described. Although a policy must in all cases state correctly, and in 1 Paterson v. Harris, 1 B. & S. 336; 30 L. J. (Q. B.) 354. We do no more here than observe that no objection was taken to the insurable interest of the claimant.-Ed. 2 Ante, p. 18. 3 See 1 Emerig., c. viii. s. 6. Post, Part I., c. vi. some specifically, what is insured; there is no authority for saying that the reason why 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." 1 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.2 Thus, one of several part owners 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.3 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, that the interests of the lender on bottomry and respondentia must be specifically described in the policy, adds, " But we by no means 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." "I admit,” says Park, J., "that a party who has only a special interest in goods may recover, in respect of that interest, on a general insurance."" One of the first cases, in direct illustration of this point, is that of Carruthers v. Shedden, in which it appeared that a general insurance "on coffee" had been effected by a London broker, "by order and for account of N. D. & Co.," a London mercantile firm, who were interested as part owners with others in seven-tenths of the coffee, but who had also an in 1 Per Lord Tenterden in Crowley v. Cohen, 3 B. & Ad. 478, 485. The principle is laid down, 1 Eme rigon, c. x. s. 1, p. 299. i 3 Rising v. Burnett, 2 Marshall, Ins., 738. 4 Glover v. Black, 1 W. Bl. 423; see also 3 Burr. 1401. 5 Palmer v. Pratt, 2 Bing. 192. In the United surable 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. & 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.' Upon the same principle a general policy "on goods "" 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.' 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 as it stood, on the ground that it is only necessary to state accurately the subject matter, not the interest which the assured has in it. The decisions upon this subject in the United States go to the full extent of the English law; and the doctrine seems now to be established there, that a mortgagee may insure the 1 Carruthers v. Shedden, 6 Taunt. 114; S. C., 1 Marshall, R. 416. 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 boats, containing goods, at work between London, Wolverhampton, and Birmingham, &c., backwards and forwards, and in any rotation, upon goods, and on the body and tackle, &c., on thirty boats, as per margin;" in the valuation clause it was declared that the subject of insurance was agreed between the parties to be "twelve thousand pounds on goods as interest shall appear hereafter." Crowley v. Cohen, 3 B. & Ad. 478, subject of the mortgage, either generally, or under a direct description, without specifying his interest to be that of a mortgagee.' In considering what is covered. under particular terms in Identification of subject. the policy, we have necessarily borne close on those means and marks of identification of the subject of the policy which are of essential importance to the rights of the parties to the contract. These we defer until we have come to consider the ship as the means of conveyance, and the duration of the risk in its connection with the shipment of the cargo, thereby pointed out as the subject of insurance in the policy. 1 See the cases collected, 1 Phillips, Ins., no. 419, et seq. 2 Post, Part I., cc. vii. ix. Who may be assured. WE come now to treat of parties in their specific relation to insurance. In view of the general doctrines of law, it is enough here to state that all who are capable of making a valid contract may be parties to a valid policy of insurance. Of the various classes of persons incapable in law of being parties, we are obliged by the international aspect often assumed by questions respecting marine insurance, to advert specially to the doctrines of municipal and international law which forbid all commerce with alien enemies and declare their contracts invalid. But when we ask who may be assured, the peculiar nature of the contract as one of indemnity imposes a remarkable modification on the answer, and a distinction which is due solely to the history of English law. In the case of British property there must be an insurable interest in the assured. This must have been so at common law as it stood before the time of Charles the Second in respect of any property insured. But wager policies came into use among those who |