confirmed: namely, that where a man infures 2000l. and it turns out in proof that he has an intereft to the value of a cable only, fuch an intereft will never be allowed to operate fo as to evade the ftatute. For in this cafe, it appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff had fome goods on board; but that was held not to be an intereft fufficient to juftify an infurance fo evidently contrary to the act of parliament. Indeed wherever the court can fee upon the face of the policy, that it is merely a contract of gaming, where indemnity is not the object in view, they are bound to declare fuch policy void. Another v. Bourdicu. The plaintiffs had lent to Lawfon, captain of the Lowry and Lord Holland, East Indiaman, 26,000l. for which he had given them a common bond, in the penal fum of 52,000. While he was with his fhip at China, the plaintiffs got a policy of infurance underwritten by the defendant and others, which was in the following terms: "at and from China to London, beginning the adventure upon the goods from the loading thereof on board the faid fhip at Canton, in China, &c. and upon the faid fhip from and immediately following her "arrival at Canton in China, valued at 26,000l. being the amount of captain Patrick Lawfon's "common bond, payable to the parties, as fhall "be defcribed on the back of this policy; and "it bears date the 16th day of December 1775; "and in cafe of lofs, no other proof of intereft to be "required than the exhibition of the faid bond: "warranted free from average, and without be"nefit of falvage to the infurer." At the head of the fubfcriptions was written, "On a bond as above expressed." Captain Lawfon failed from China, and arrived fafe with his privilege (as it is called) or adventure, in London, on the 1ft of July 1777, none of the events infured againft having happened. The receipt of the premium was acknowledged on the back of the X 4 policy. policy. This cafe came before the court upon an action for a return of premium, on the ground that, the policy being without intereft, the contract was void. This cafe, as far as it relates to the queftion of return of premium, will be confidered in a future chapter: but in the courfe of the difcuffion, it became neceffary to determine, whether the policy, just recited, was good within the ftatute. At the trial, which came on at the fittings after Trinity Term, 1780, the Chief Juftice was of opinion, that this was a gaming policy, prohibited by the statute of 19 Geo. 2. c. 37. and a verdict was given for the defendant. His lordship, however, having expreffed a doubt upon the propriety of his opinion on other points of the caufe, a motion for a new trial was afterwards made, and all the questions came to be debated before the court: when the majority of the judges confirmed Lord Mansfield's firft direction upon all the points. It is true Mr. Justice Willes differed from his brethren upon that occafion; the learned judge being of opinion, upon the queftion relating to our prefent enquiry, that this was not a gaming policy: that it did not appear to him, that the parties had any idea they were entering into an illegal contract: that the whole was difclofed, and they thought there was an intereft; this was a miftake; but it is a new point of law. The three other judges fupported their opinions upon the following grounds. Lord Mansfield.-It is certainly true, in many inftances, that first thoughts are beft. I am now very much inclined to my firft opinion. There are two forts of policies of infurance; mercantile and gaming policies. The firft fort are contracts of indemnity, and of indemnity only; and from that principle a great variety of decifions and confequences have followed. The fecond fort may be the fame in form; but in them there is no contract of indemnity, becaufe there is no intereft terest upon which a lofs can accrue. They are mere games of hazard, like the caft of a die. In the prefent cafe, the nature of the infurance is known to both parties. The plaintiffs fay, "We "mean to game; but we give our reafon for it; "captain Lawson owes us a fum of money, and "( we want to be fecure in cafe he should not be "in a fituation to pay us." It was a hedge. But they had no intereft; for if the fhip had been loft, and the underwriters had paid, still the plaintiffs would have been entitled to recover the amount of the bond from Lawfon. This then is a gaming policy; and against an act of parlia ment. Mr. Juftice Abburst.-A policy of infurance ought to be a mere contract of indemnity, and nothing more; but here the money might have been paid twice, which fhews decifively that this was a gaming policy. Mr. Juftice Buller.-It is very clear to me that the plaintiffs ought not to recover. There was no fraud on the part of the underwriters, nor any mistake in matter of fact. If the law was mistaken, the rule applies, that ignorantia juris non excufat. This was a mere gaming policy without intereft. Agreeably to this opinion, the rule for a new trial was difcharged. The fecond fection of the act in queftion, which allows of infurances being made on private fhips of war, intereft or no intereft, feems fufficiently clear, and requires no explanation. The third fection, by which infurances upon any merchandizes or effects from any ports or places in Europe or America, in the poffeffion of the crowns of Spain or Portugal may be effected in the manner practifed before this act was paffed, feems to be obfcurely worded. The Mr. Juftice learned commentator upon the law of England Blackstone, obferves, that the reafon of this provifo is fuffi- 2. vol. Com, ciently obvious. Notwithstanding this autho- 460. rity, in order to comprehend the meaning of the legiflature, legiflature, we must observe, that the trade from Spain and Portugal to their respective colonies and establishments in South America, and the returns thereof, can only be carried on by their own fubjects; and all other perfons are prohibited from that trade by pofitive regulations of these respective ftates. The confequence of fuch a prohibition is, that all the goods and merchandizes, which the subjects of this and other countries export from Spain and Portugal, must be in the names of Spanish fubjects. So that it was abfolutely neceffary to make this exception; (for no other proof, but the policy itfelf can be brought) otherwife all infurances upon that branch of trade must have been entirely void. The words, however, feem to allow a greater latitude than was meant by the legislature in making fuch a provifion for by adverting merely to the words, infurances from any ports or places in Europe or America, belonging to Spain and Portugal to England or other ports of Europe may be made, as if this act had never paffed. Whereas by attending to the prohibition of trade juft mentioned to any but the fubjects of Spain and Portugal, as the commerce between thefe colonies and the parent countries can only be carried on by fubjects, it is evident, that the legislature intended rather to have faid, that infurances on goods from ports belonging to Spain and Portugal in Europe to any ports in America belonging to thofe courts; and from fuch ports in America to fuch ports or places in Europe, fhall be valid and effectual contracts, than to authorize insurances from the dominions of Spain and Portugal in Europe or America, to whatsoever place in the world the fhip, in which thefe goods are to be carried, may happen to be defined. The words, however, certainly admit of that broad conftruction; for the place of deftination is not afcertained. Upon this fection of the act, it may be obferved, that the equitable conftruction of fuch contrasts contracts of infurance as are protected by it, feems to be, that they may be made without intereft, notwithstanding the cafe of Goddard v. Garrett, above cited: fince in fuch inftances it is impof- V. ante p. fible for the perfon infured to bring any certain 297. proof of intereft on board. Hitherto we have spoken merely of that part of this very falutary act, which requires, that every person making fuch a contract, fhould have an intereft in that, which is the object of the infurance. Another part of it ftill claims our attention, that which prohibits re-affurances. What a re-affurance is; in what cafes it is prohibited; and when it is allowable, will form the fubject of the following chapter. CHAPTER THE FIFTEENTH. Of Re-Affurance: and Double Infurance. R E-ASSURANCE, as understood by the law of England, may be faid to be a contract, which the firft infurer enters into, in order to relieve himself from thofe rifks which he has incautiously undertaken, by throwing them upon other underwriters, who are called re-affurers. This fpecies of contract has obtained a place in most of the commercial fyftems of the trading powers of Europe; and is allowed by them at this day to be politick and legal. The learned Roccus has decided exprefsly in favour of it; and has cited many refpectable authorities in fupport of his opinion." Affecurator, poft factam affecu"rationem, poteft fe affecurari facere ab alio "affecuratore, et ifte fecundus affecurator tene- 12. tur pro affecuratione factà a primo, et ad fol "vendum Roccus de |