Indorsee of bill of lading. own names on account of the consignors, who will be bound by such policy if they have already authorized it, or if they subsequently adopt it. Otherwise, such consignees cannot effect a valid policy.2 With regard to consignees who have a lien or claim on the property in respect of advances, or commission agents to whom it is entrusted for the purposes of sale, or indorsees of the bill of lading to whom a general balance is due, no doubt they may effect an insurance on their own account and recover to the amount of their lien, claim or balance.3 The legal value of an indorsed bill of lading is now more liable to be misconceived since the Bills of Lading Act (18 & 19 Vict. c. 111) has, by transferring the contract to the transferee of the property, increased the similarity between this instrument and a bill of exchange. But But it must be understood that title to the property comprised in it is not necessarily vested by indorsement in the indorsee. Whatever right he may have under it is a question of evidence. touching the intention of the indorser. Consequently, if the shipper, consignor, or owner of the goods, with intention to transfer the property indorses the bill of lading to one and transmits it to him, and then transmits indorsed bills of lading for the same property severally to others, these latter take nothing, because the whole had already vested in the first transferee. That first transferee alone has an insurable interest in the property of which this instrument is the symbol. 4 Of course by means of this instrument, and the expressed 1 Wolff v. Horncastle, 1 B. & P. 316. 2 See the admirable remarks of Lawrence, J., in his celebrated judgment in Lucena v. Craufurd, 2 B. & P. N. R. 307; and see a very able note of Judge Duer, note 2 to s. 10 of vol. ii. pp. 160-174, Duer on Ins. 3 Wolff v. Horncastle, 1 B. & P. 316, 323; S. P. in Conway v. Gray, 10 East, 547; and in Godin v. London Ass. Co., 1 Burr. 489, 494; Carruthers v. Sheddon, 6 Taunt. 14; Flint v. Le Mesurier, 2 Park, 563. 4 Caldwell v. Ball, 1 T. R. 205; McAndrew . Bell, 1 Esp. 373; Hibbert v. Carter, 1 T. R. 745; Hubbersty v. Ward, 8 Exch. 330. intention of the consignor, the interest conveyed under it and the insurable interest arising upon it may be indefinitely modified. If, for instance, it appear, by satisfactory evidence, that the assignment of the bill of lading is only intended to bind the net proceeds of the consignment in the hands of the consignor's agents, the consignor, notwithstanding such indorsement of the bill of lading, has still an insurable interest in the goods, since he continues to be as directly concerned in their safety as before the indorsement.1 with a lien. That a consignee of goods, who is entrusted as a commis- Consignee sion agent to sell them, or who has accepted bills on them, or has a general balance against the consignor, has an insurable interest in the goods or derivable out of them, at all events to the extent of his claims, is a position which has received frequent illustration in our jurisprudence. But we have seen that he must take care to describe the special risks he means to cover, otherwise his insurable interest may be altogether unprotected or otherwise seriously restricted and defeated.3 Thus, where the general agents of the consignor, on re- Wolff v. fusal of the consignees to accept the goods, retained the bills Horncastle. of lading in their own hands, and accepted drafts on account of the consignment to the amount of 3007., they were held to have an insurable interest to the amount of their acceptances, because "a debt which arises in consequence of the article insured and which would have given a lien upon it, does give an insurable interest.' 194 Secretan. The house of De la Torre, in Spain, consigned a cargo of Hill v. wool, with the bill of lading indorsed to the firm of Dubois & Son, in London, directing them to hold part of it for Messrs. Hill & Co. of Exeter. Hill & Co. had given no 1 Hibbert v. Carter, 1 T. R. 745. 2 Ante, p. 77. 3 Knox v. Wood, 1 Camp. 542; McSwiney v. Roy. Ex. Ass. Co., 14 M. Q. B. 646; Halhead v. Young, 6 G Secus, where there is no lien. Under a lien, both debtor and creditor may have an insurable interest. Pledgee of Consignee as orders for the wool, but De la Torre & Co. were indebted to them in the sum of 5007. The Court held that, under these circumstances, Hill & Co. had clearly an insurable interest in that part of the wool which was to be held for their benefit, and might recover under a count averring the interest to be in them.1 But, in the United States, where the consignor directed the consignees to hold, not the goods, but the proceeds of the goods, to the use of his creditor, this was held not to give the creditor an insurable interest in the goods,2 on the assumption, it would seem, that he could not under these circumstances have claimed possession of them. It has been held in the United States, that where one takes a bill of lading to secure advances of money on a shipment of goods, and makes out the invoice in his own name, the shipper of the goods has still an insurable interest in them to their full value.3 Of course the right to recover in case of loss, could not be co-extensive with both policies. It follows upon the principle involved in this decision, that any creditor, to whom goods are consigned as a collateral security, has an insurable interest in them to the amount of his debt.* So where the bill of lading is pledged by the consignees of the goods as a security for advances to them, the pledgee has an insurable interest in the goods; and may sue in his own name on a policy effected by his instructions " for account of whom it may concern," and deposited with him as an additional security." There is no doubt that a trustee, having the legal interest in the chattel, may insure to the full value of the goods." 1 Hill v. Secretan, 1 B. & P. 315. 2 Murray v. Columbian Ins. Co., 11 Johnson's Rep. 302. 3 Locke v. North American Ins. Co., 13 Mass. Rep. 61; 1 Phillips, no. 286. 4 Wells v. Philadelphia Ins. Co., 9 Serg. & Rawle, 103; 1 Phillips, no. 292. 5 Sutherland v. Pratt, 12 M. & W. 16. 6 Per Lord Eldon, in Lucena v. Craufurd, 2 B. & P. N. R. 324; Waters v. Monarch Life Ass. Co., 5 E. & B. 870; 25 L. J. (Q. B.) 102. Hamilton. Two British ships, The Ross and The Atlantic, having Robertson v. with their cargoes been captured by the Spaniards, the plaintiffs, owners of The Ross, together with the owners of The Atlantic and the proprietors of their cargoes, gave a joint authority to Cowan to endeavour to obtain restitution. Cowan, by giving up part of the cargoes to the captors, obtained restitution en masse of the ships and the residue of the cargoes as for all concerned. His bills on the plaintiffs for his general expenses were accepted and paid by them; and his consignment to them of the whole of the property was followed up by their effecting policies, among other subjects, on The Atlantic, of which they were not originally owners. Upon a declaration on this insurance on The Atlantic averring interest in them, Lord Ellenborough and the rest of the Court held, that they had a clear insurable interest in this vessel, as the whole of the property had been redeemed en masse and consigned to them under lien for advances of money by them to secure the whole concern.1 It must be received then, as a general principle, that consignees of goods, being under advances to the consignors, or under liabilities, e. g., by acceptances for them, may insure in their own name and on their own account, to the full value of the goods, and apply the proceeds of the policies to their own benefit, to the extent of such claims, holding the residue in trust for the consignors, if it was intended when effecting the policies to cover their interest also.2 An exception to this general principle was supposed to have Supposed been established by an English decision that identified the exception. consignor with his own government, so as to make the act of the government an estoppel against him in seeking to recover on the policy. A cargo of American produce had been put on Conway v. board by an American firm under consignment to an English house, when an embargo was laid upon it by the United 1 Robertson v. Hamilton, 14 East, 522. 2 See, in addition to the cases already cited, Carruthers v. Sheddon, 6 Taunt. 14. The same position is es- Gray. Considered in Aubert v. Gray. States government. Meanwhile a policy on the goods had been effected by the English house for the consignor with English underwriters; and after abandonment, in consequence of the embargo, an action to recover for the consignor was brought by the English house on the policies; but the Court held that the consignor must be identified with his government, and could not recover against the English underwriters.1 This decision has since been examined in the Exchequer Chamber in a case of detention by the Spanish government, at the time in a state of amity with the government of the insurer, and in so far as the case of Conway v. Gray purports by a rule of law to identify generally the assured with his own government so as to estop him by their acts, it is overruled. The principle, if there be any such, is not applicable unless it be during a war between the governments of the assured and insurer.2 Mortgagor and mortgagee. We have seen that a creditor with a lien on property for his claim, has an insurable interest to the same extent. It follows that a mortgagee of ship or goods has a distinct insurable interest in the mortgaged property, and may recover on a policy effected for his benefit, averring the interest to be in himself, to the full amount of the mortgage debt. At the same time, the equitable title that still remains in the mortgagor is in him an insurable interest which he may protect by a separate policy. A factor resident in this country, to whom goods and freight have been mortgaged by his foreign principal for advances, may, upon consignment to himself of the goods with the bill of lading indorsed, insure the legal interest in the property on his own account, and the equitable interest for account of his principal.3 1 Conway v. Gray, Conway v. Forbes, Maury v. Shedden, 10 East, 536. 2 Aubert v. Gray, 3 B. & S. 163; in error, id. 169; 32 L. J. (Q. B.) 50. 3 Per Ashurst, J., Smith v. Lascelles, 2 T. R. 187, 188. |