The boat. The interest need not be disclosed. In policies on steamships, although it is not unusual to mention the machinery besides the hull, as for instance, on hull and machinery, yet this seems to be unnecessary. Since the term ship in a policy in which the vessel insured is stated to be a steamer would suffice to cover both; and indeed there is commonly an object to be served by distinguishing between these two parts of the same fabric, e. g., when a distinct amount is expressed to be insured on each, and for the purposes of average and other similar results they are stipulated to be taken as if separately insured.1 It will be observed that the "boat" is included by name as part of the ship in the common policies of insurance; and there is no doubt, notwithstanding the opinion of certain authorities, that it forms part of the outfit included under ship as the common designation for the whole. In one case where the policy was on ship in the common form, viz., upon the "body, tackle, apparel, munition, ordnance, boat and other furniture" of the ship, the underwriters resisted a claim for the boat; but this upon the ground that there was a usage never to pay for boats outside the ship slung upon the quarters; the underwriters did not succeed in their contention, but even their success would have left the present point unchallenged in the law of insurance that the boat is part of the ship and without express mention in the policy would be covered under that term.3 We shall see towards the end of this chapter that, as a general rule, the nature and extent of the interest which the assured has in the subject of insurance need not be disclosed on the face of the policy. Hence a mortgagee of ship may, it seems, on a general policy on ship, without more, recover to the extent of his interest.4 value of the ship, but upon a fixed 1 See Oppenheim v. Fry, 3 B. & 17. 2 See Maclachlan on Shipping, 16, 3 Blackett v. Roy. Exch. Ass. Co., 2 C. & J. 250. See 1 Emerigon, c. vi. sec. vii. § 2. Irving v. Richardson, 1 Mood. & Rob. 153; S. C., 2 B. & Ad. 193. The rule is the same in the United States. There the owner of a ship who had chartered half of her, the mortgagee, and (though this was in one case doubted) the mortgagor, have all been allowed to recover to the extent of their respective interests under general policies on ship, in which the nature and extent of their interest were not disclosed.1 Query, of the interest of collision. In one case Lord Ellenborough seemed to think that the interest of captors who had no grant, but only a reasonable captors. expectation of a grant of the captured property, must, if insurable at all, be specifically described in the policy:2 but the interest vested in the Crown, on its adoption of the captor's insurance, may be covered by the common form of policy.3 Among other losses which might fall upon ship that would Risks from not be covered by a policy of this description, it is only necessary to refer to the enumeration in the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862, sect. 54, of loss of life, personal injury, loss or damage to goods on board, and of similar losses, damage and injuries occasioned on board another vessel by the ship in question. By sect. 55 of the same statute, the validity of policies effected against any or all of the enumerated risks is established against any objection to the nature of these risks. A specific description, however, is indispensable to bring them within the scope of a policy adapted to cover them.1 A vessel covered by a general policy on ship came into collision with another in the Hooghly river with such damage to both and under such circumstances that, in accordance with the rule of maritime law, at that time followed only in the Admiralty Court, the damage to both was equally shared between them. The owner, under such a policy, recovered 1 See the cases collected by Mr. Phillips, vol. i. no. 421 et seq. 2 Routh v. Thompson, 11 East, 433. His Lordship seems to rank it with expected profits, to be described therefore as a chance in the policy, the right to recover depending on proof at the trial that this chance would have been a reality but for the intervention of the perils insured 3 S. C., 13 East, 274. A new species of association, denominated Shipowners' Mutual Protection Association, has sprung up for the insuring of these and other risks and liabilities not within the "scope of an ordinary Lloyd's policy." only the amount of the damage actually sustained by his own ship, and had to bear the excess allotted to him under the law maritime.1 It is now common to insert special indemnity clauses in policies, to provide against risks of this nature. If such a clause be to indemnify in a certain proportion of all sums paid to an amount not exceeding the full value of the ship, and in a damage cause the vessel be sold under decree of the Admiralty Court for a less amount than her value, the assured cannot recover more under the policy than the amount paid. under the decree.3 Goods. In all probability merchandise was the earliest subject to which insurance was applied; it is now at all events a good subject of a policy. But this, or that other generic term goods, is exceedingly general and indefinite, and therefore we proceed to inquire what is, or is not, covered by a policy on goods. It is unnecessary, in most cases, for the merchant, vered by goods who wishes to insure his merchandise against sea risks, to do more than give a general description of it as goods or mer→ chandise. Under such a policy, in case of loss, the merchant What is co or merchan dise. 1 De Vaux v. Salvador, 4 A. & E. 420. Story, J., dissented from this decision, and was confirmed in that opinion by the Sup. Ct. U. S.; Peters v. Warren Ins. Co., 3 Sumn. C. C. 389; S. C., 14 Pet. 99. But the Supreme Court appears in a subsequent case to have reconsidered the principle involved in that decision, and to have dissented from it, adopting as one of the grounds of their judgment the principle laid down by Lord Denman in the above case; see General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. 352; 1 Phillips, Ins., no. 1137a. The principle of Lord Denman's decision remains untouched by the recent change in the law, 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, § 25, no. 9, according to which this rule, peculiar formerly to the Admiralty Court, is now the law of the English Courts, sharing the damage between both where both are to blame for the collision of the ships; Maclachlan, Shipping, p. 306. 2 Instead of attempting by a single clause to define and provide against a variety of specific risks, it were much easier and safer to do this by reference to the section or sections or parts of a section of the statute. In Taylor v. Dewar, 5 B. & S. 58; 33 L. J. (Q. B.) 141, it was held that a clause "in case the vessel should run down or damage any other ship, &c.," did not cover damages paid by reason of loss of life and personal injury. See post, Passage Money, p. 36. 3 Thompson v. Reynolds, 7 E. & B. 162; 26 L. J. (Q. B.) 93. would recover for any goods of his, not requiring a more specific designation, which ultimately proved to be on board at the time of the loss.1 Hence it is laid down by the French jurists, and apparently Substituted on sound principles, that if, under such a general form of in- cargo. surance, the ship, in the course of the voyage insured, and under liberty given her for that purpose in the policy, touches at an intermediate port, and there lands the goods which were on board at the commencement of the risk, and takes on board others on account of the assured, such substituted goods are comprehended under the general words of the policy, and their value is recoverable in case of loss.2 So, in this country, although after a policy has been once effected on a particular subject of insurance, it cannot, in consequence of the stamp laws, be so altered as to apply to a totally different subject; "yet it is not to be inferred from hence," says Lord Ellenborough, "that shifting or successive cargoes on board the same ship, in the course of the same continued adventure, as in the African and other trades, out and home, may not properly be the subject of insurance under the word goods; for in some of these cases the successive cargoes, i. e. (1), of English goods; (2), African articles of traffic; and, lastly, West India produce, are, according to the course of such trading adventures, one continued subjectmatter of insurance under the one name of goods."3 articles, and contraband. With regard to goods liable to leakage the French law re- Goods subject to leakage, quires them to be specifically described in the policy (except perishable where the assured at the time of effecting the insurance is ignorant of the nature of the cargo), otherwise no loss is recoverable upon such goods under the general description. The same rule is extended to perishable articles and to contraband of war, by the laws of other foreign states.1 Pour que telle assurance soit valable, il suffit que l'aliment du risque existe lors du sinistre. Emerigon, c. x. s. 1, p. 296. 1 2 Emerigon, ibid. See also 3 Boulay-Paty, Droit Com. Mar. 384; Co. de Com., art. 335. 3 Hill v. Patten, 8 East, 373, 377. See also Tobin v. Harford, 32 L. J. (C. P.) 134; in error, 34 L. J. (C. P.) 37; 13 C. B., N. S. 791. 4 Ord. de la Marine, liv. 3, t. 6, Bullion, coin, and jewels, on board for the purpose of commerce. No such rule exists in this country. As to articles liable to leakage or deterioration, the underwriters by the common memorandum expressly exempt themselves either from all liability for average losses, or from liability for any such loss not amounting to a specified per-centage. As to contraband of war, although the underwriter would not be held liable unless he were told of the nature of the intended risk, it has never been decided that the contraband character of the cargo must be specified in the policy. Considerable doubt appears at one time to have been entertained, in all probability from mistaken theories of the balance of trade, and of the evils of exportation of such commodities, whether money, bullion, or jewels, could be insured under the general denomination of "goods, wares, and merchandise." There is now, however, no doubt that, when put on board as merchandise, they may be insured, in this country, under the general description of goods and merchandise (though in actual practice they are generally insured under a specific description); it being at the same time understood that the underwriter is not liable for the risk of a clandestine exportation. In some of the continental states there are positive regulations requiring these commodities to be specifically designated in the policy.2 In France, the law is that they may be insured under the general designation, provided their transport be not prohibited and the bills of lading be duly made out.3 Bank notes and bills of exchange should, perhaps, be specifically described; for a policy "on goods" is held to be art. 31; Co. de Com., art. 355; 1 1 For an instance see the case of will cover dollars, if entered at the custom-house; per Dampier, J., in Manning's Dig. Index to N. P. Rep. 165, note 5, 2nd ed.; see also 1 Magens, 10. 2 See 1 Magens, 9, note; and 1 Nolte's Benecke, 556-558. 31 Emerigon, c. x. s. 2, p. 303. Per Dampier, J., Manning's Index, 165; Palmer v. Pratt, 2 Bing. 185. |