Page images
PDF
EPUB

on

credit or the shipowner's, he was empowered "in instant unprovided necessity" (in fact, in direst need) to raise money by pledging his ship for repayment. The cash thus obtained was repayable within a fixed number of days after arrival at destination; if the vessel did not arrive the bottomry bond remained unpaid. The lender of money bottomry had thus an insurable interest: but in accordance with Lord Mansfield's decision in Glover v. Black in 1763,1 "respondentia and bottomry must be mentioned and specified in the policy of insurance." The respondentia bond was a similar document in which the cargo was pledged. It sometimes happened that both ship and cargo were pledged, in which case the document embodying the contract was called a bottomry and respondentia bond. By the Ordinance of Louis XIV. (Book III. Tit. 6, Art. 16) borrowers on bottomry were forbidden to insure the amount lent to them, under penalty of nullity of the policy and corporal punishment. Lenders on bottomry were restrained by the same penalties from insuring their expected profits on their ventures. The Code de Commerce forbids the borrower on bottomry to insure the amount he borrowed. The German code permits the lender on bottomry to insure his loan and the maritime interest. The Italian and new Spanish codes provide that on ship and goods only the excess of what is covered by bottomry and/or respondentia may be insured.

D. Profits being derivatives of the material subjects concerned in a marine venture are with them exposed to perils, and consequently those concerned in them have an insurable interest. The amount of such interest is not usually shown separately in policies, it is generally added to the valuation of the article on which the profit is expected. When the insurance on profit is done in this form it benefits 1 3 Burr. 1394.

only parties who have an interest in the goods. To make sure that insurances on profit alone represent a genuine interest in goods, it was decided in Stockdale v. Dunlop, 1840,1 that the assured to secure payment must be legally interested in the goods when they were lost. In the case of Hodgson v. Glover, 1805,2 Mr. Justice Lawrence decided that the assured on profit must show that if there had been no shipwreck there would have been some profit (Arnould, p. 291, note f).

E. Freight. It is impossible to avoid introducing here the great maritime interest freight, which was nowhere mentioned in the printed matter of the English policy prior to 1749. There is no interest concerning which more diverse views have been entertained or regulations devised. Bearing in mind Lowndes' view of the true value of a ship (p. 74), it is apparent that if the valuation of a ship is fixed at such an amount as will include her net earnings on the voyages for which she has firm freight contracts, the freight ought not to be insured separately. But as has been pointed out already, the valuation of ships is fixed in a very rough and ready way, cost of building, amount of shipping in the market, etc. etc., all influencing the price fixed, and as a fixed freight is a definite sum it has been found convenient to deal with it separately from ship. The one rule upon which English law insists is that to constitute an insurable interest in freight there must exist some legally enforceable bargain or contract. In Patrick v. Eames, 18133 (the orchellaweed case), Lord Ellenborough stated that, "If such contract had been proved, the assured would have been deprived by the loss of a profit which they otherwise must certainly have received, and for which they would have been entitled to an indemnity." Consequently, whatever be the state of the freight market when a vessel leaves in the hope 16 M. & W. 224. 26 East 316. 3 3 Camp. 441.

of getting a freight elsewhere, there is no insurable interest on freight until she has been fixed for her next voyage for some particular employment. In France there have been many difficulties on this subject, a very sharp distinction being drawn between frêt à faire and frêt acquis, the insurance of the former being forbidden. But by the law of 14th August 1885, permission was given to insure (inter alia) net freight.

(2) Subjects of Insurance. The discussion of the meaning to be attached to the general words in the policy intended to describe briefly the various subjects insurable by the policy and of the nature of insurable interest has resulted in the enumeration of many subjects which may be insured. But there is not in any document or enactment of English law, an enumeration seriatim of the various classes of things that may be insured such as is found in the commercial codes of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and other continental countries. In the absence of such an enumeration, the best plan that can be adopted is to take Mr. Justice Lawrence's definition of insurable interest, and to say that every object or relation to which this definition can be applied is one on which insurance may legally be asked and effected, unless there is some statutory prohibition or some valid decision against the legality of the assurance.

For

In the examination of the words of the policy "any kinds of goods and merchandises," it was stated that limitations have been placed on the use of these words as describing subjects of insurance: but that must be taken in the sense that certain subjects must be described by their specific name when it is intended that they shall be covered by policy of marine insurance. instance, the absence of the word "freight" or "hire" from the printed words of the policy does not mean that this interest cannot be covered by the policy. It is evident that the interest meant to be protected by an insurance of freight would be misdescribed by the words "goods or merchandises." The interest "freight" must

therefore be specially designated in writing in the policy. Similarly, live stock has been decided not to be properly included under the words "goods and merchandises," and it seems likely that the same holds true of fresh or frozen beef or mutton, which is now so largely imported from North and South America and New Zealand. These interests must therefore be fully specified.

But of the objects in which the would-be assured has an interest properly describable as an insurable interest in terms of Mr. Justice Lawrence's definition, some even if specifically described are not admitted to be legally insurable. Such are slaves, the insurance of whom as articles of trade was prohibited in this country by the same Act of Parliament of 1806 (47 Geo. III. c. 36) which abolished the African slave trade. This prohibition can now only be regarded as due to the same spirit as succeeded in abolishing the slave trade: it would evidently have been futile to forbid the carrying on of a trade in British vessels, which might be carried on in foreign ships protected by British insurance policies. The other subject on which insurance is forbidden in almost all maritime states is seamen's wages. As Marshall puts it, “It seems to be the policy of all maritime states to use every precaution to prevent the desertion of the seamen, to interest them in the preservation of the ship, and to invite them to the most vigorous exertions in times of danger." The English case cited by Marshall is Webster v. De Tastet, decided in 1797.1 This prohibition extends to every member of the crew under the master. But the master being considered of too good a position to be influenced solely by his own immediate interest in the venture is permitted to insure his pay or commission as well as any share he may have in the vessel.2 With these two exceptions it may be taken that there is no illegality in insuring any object in which an insurable interest fulfilling Mr. Justice Lawrence's dictum can be proved to exist.

The prohibition of the insurance of seamen's wages recalls the somewhat similar prohibition in France, until 1 7 T.R. 157. 2 Cf. Shakespeare, Measure, ii. 2, 130.

14th August 1885, of insurance on freight at risk (frêt à faire). The shipper or charterer was permitted to include in his insurance the amount of freight prepaid or guaranteed (frêt acquis); but the shipowner was not allowed to insure the balance of the freight. One reason given in the French books for this regulation is that it was hoped by means of it to secure the care and diligence of shipowner, master and crew. But what the great Émerigon gives as the real reason is that the freight at risk (frêt à faire) being an uncertain profit, the result of good fortune on the voyage, does not exist until the voyage is closed, and therefore cannot become a subject of insurance for the voyage. This is subtle; but the strict application of this principle would prohibit the insurance of any profit or increase of value on ship or goods, which would be entirely alien to the spirit of English insurance law.1

Multiple Insurance. In close connection with the questions of insurable interest and subjects of insurance lie the problems arising from the insurance of the same interest twice or several times over with different underwriters. The principle adopted in England is that the assured has the right to make his choice of the policy against which he will make his claim for any loss that may occur; but the underwriters on that policy are

entitled to claim from the other underwriters on the same interest a rateable contribution to their loss. In Davis v. Gildart, 1776,2 a merchant insured his interest, whose value was £2200, first in Liverpool for £1700 and then in London for £2200, the evidence showing that there was no fraudulent intention in effecting the second policy. It was held by Lord Mansfield that the merchant could recover from his London underwriters the full £2200 in

1 Prior to 1885 M. Alfred de Courcy of Paris, the most eminent French underwriter of his day, used to hold that it was an error to say that French law prohibited the insurance of freight: he said that all it did was to refuse to such insurances legal sanction and recourse to the courts. It is true there was no penalty beyond the nullity and voidance of the policy, or rather the absence of legal sanction; but is not that in itself to some extent a deterrent provided by the law?

2 Park 424.

« EelmineJätka »