is necessary to advert further upon that subject. By the provisions of the 35 Geo. III., c. 63, a stamped policy is the only legal proof of the contract of insurance.1

The policy at one time in marine insurance was drawn out blank, without the name of the insured; but this having led to abuses, it was corrected by the Act 25 Geo. III., c. 44, which prohibited all such policies, and declared that the name of the party insuring should appear in the policy, or that of his agent. (Symers v. Glasgow Marine Insurance Company, 25 Nov. 1846, 9 S. and D. 168; 19 Jurist, 49.)

The policy must further describe the voyage insured. Even if the insurance is effected on salvage, the policy will be inept and void if it do not correctly describe the commencing and terminating point of the voyage, or risk insured.—(Smith, etc., v. Yelton, etc., Mor. 11962, House of Lords, 5 Paton's App. Cas. 139.)

In a life policy, the particulars required are: the name, residence, profession or occupation of the party whose life is insured.-(Perrins v. the Marine and General Travellers' Insurance Company, Qu. B. 41, Exch. C. 563.)

There are some clauses peculiar to the marine policy which require comment and elucidation.

1. Most, if not all marine insurances, contain the clause, "lost or not lost." The object of this clause evidently is to enable the insured to recover,

1 The Acts 54 Geo. III., c. 144; 35 Geo. III., c. 63; 9 Geo. IV., c. 49; and 7 Vict., c. 21, regulate the matter of stamp in regard to all policies of insurance.

even although, at the moment of the insurance, the vessel (then perhaps on her voyage) may have been lost, provided both the assured and the underwriters are ignorant of the loss.-(1 Arnould, 21; Marsh on Ins. 338-340; Philips on Ins., vol. i., pp. 72-458.) It also covers by legal construction either past or future losses.(Per Baron Parke, in Sutherland v. Pratt, 11 Mee. and Wel. 311, 312.)

2. The clause, "for and in name of all persons to whom the same doth appertain in part or in all."

This clause is of great utility and importance, and is conceived to meet all possible claims made for the loss, not only by the party named in it, and who effected the policy, but also enables any party to claim on the policy who can prove an interest in the subject at the time of the loss, although this interest may have arisen subsequently to its date, and after the loss.(Sutherland v. Pratt, 11 Mee. and Wel. 296.) For example, if a broker is employed by A. to insure his vessel, and the broker insures the vessel in his own name, with this clause superadded to it, and for and in name or names of all persons to whom the same doth appertain in part or in all," this will not entitle the broker, or any one in his name, to claim the loss exclusively for himself, or to deal with it as if it were for his own behoof; but only to claim it for A., for whom he has insured, although A.'s name may not appear in the policy.-(Losh, Wilson, and Bell, v. Douglas and Co., 8 Nov. 1857, S. and D. 58; Sutherland v. Pratt, 11 Mee. and Wel., p. 296.)

66

3. THE MEMORANDUM OR WARRANTY CLAUSE.

This clause generally runs thus: "Corn, fish, salt, fruit, flower, and seeds, warranted free from average, unless general, or the ship be stranded."

From the above articles being so liable to sea damage, and of a perishable nature, this clause is obvious enough; and the meaning is, that the underwriters are not liable for partial loss to them by sea damage. (Hills v. the London Assurance Corporation, 5 Mee. and Wel. 569.) But it does not exempt them from partial loss, however small, if the ship be stranded, and also for partial loss, if the loss be of the nature of general average.

In the insurance of the captain's "effects," which were described in the policy by the general term, "master's effects," but valued in a list separately, with a memorandum clause thus-"free from all average loss," etc., some of these effects being lost, the captain claimed for the loss of these as for their total loss, it was held, that, looking to the nature of the subject insured, the "master's effects," which usually consist of his nautical instruments, the chronometer, the clothes, books, furniture, etc., and in no way connected with each other, sua natura vel ejusdem generis, it was not doing any violence to the memorandum clause, to hold the underwriter liable as for a total loss of any of the articles of which the captain's effects consisted.-(Duff v. Mackenzie, 3 Scott, C. B. Rep. 16.)

But this case must be viewed as an exception

to the general rule, and will not apply to the insurance of a number of separate bags of linseed, not valued separately, nor separately insured, but insured as an entire number of bags, ejusdem generis. Thus, in the insurance of 2688 bags of linseed, from Calcutta to London, with the following memorandum clause, "Corn, fish, salt, fruit, flower, and seed warranted free from average loss, unless general, or the ship be stranded," etc. On the voyage insured, the vessel encountered severe weather; part of the cargo was thrown overboard to lighten the ship. Part of the linseed damaged by sea water was also cast into the sea, but 1160 bags of the 2688 were brought home to England in a sound state; and in a claim made for the partial loss, as for a total loss of those separate bags, it was held that the insurance covered the linseed as a whole, and as one specie, and there being neither separate valuation of each bag, nor separate and distinct packages of different species, the underwriters were protected by the memorandum clause, and therefore the insured was not entitled to claim for the destruction of part as for a total lossthe loss being a partial loss.-(Ralli v. Janson, 6 E. and B. 422.)

The same decision was pronounced in an insurance on rice, in separate bags, with a memorandum clause warranting free from particular average, and there was no stranding.-(Entwisle v. Ellis, 2 Hurl. and Nor. 549.)

Where the policy is conceived in express terms to cover "total loss only," with the usual memorandum clause, if the goods insured consist of separate pack

ages, and are composed of different species, and some of these are lost, the insured will be entitled to recover, according to the interpretation put on the special terms of this policy, for the part lost, as for a total loss of these.-(Wilkinson v. Hyde, 3 Scott C. B. 30.) This case was decided on the authority of Duff v. Mackenzie, 3 Scott, 16, and proceeded even upon a broader ground-not having regard to the circumstance of a separate enumeration, or valuation of each package, but having regard to the fact that the packages were of different species, and described as such, which was in effect equivalent to a separate enumeration-that in such a case it was not necessary to have separate enumerations, and that neither the memorandum clause, nor the express terms of this policy, exempted the underwriters from liability for loss of part, as for a total loss.

4. STRANDING.

From the memorandum clause in the policy mentioning stranding as one of the exceptions in which the underwriters will be liable for a partial loss, it is necessary to know precisely, what are the circumstances, which amount to a stranding in the sense of the memorandum clause.

Stranding must arise from some casus fortuitus, or some extraneous force, such as the violence of the winds or waves, or other extraordinary physical force, or from ignorance, or negligence of pilots; but it will not be a stranding if the vessel take the ground merely in the ordinary course of navigation in going down a tidal river with the ebb tide, and from defici