branch of the law of insurance, are so ably laid down by Justice Lawrence and Lord Eldon, in the case of Lucena v. Crawford, 2 Bos. and Pull., N. R., 323, that it is only necessary to refer to that case for an elucidation of them.

There is an insurable interest in freight, and therefore the owners of a vessel who are interested in earning freight may insure.— ·(Lucena v. Crawford, ut supra, 294.)

There is also an insurable interest in profits to be earned (Eyre v. Glover, 3 Camp. 276); and under this category may be included warehousemen, wharfingers, carriers (Waters v. Monarch Life and Fire Insurance Company, 25 L. J., Q. B., 102; London and North Wales Railway Company v. Glynn, 7 W. R. 238). Factors or agents have an insurable interest (per Lord Eldon, in Lucena v. Crawford, 2 Bos. and Pull. 324). They have it either for profits to be earned, or where they have a lien for advances made on account of freight or otherwise.

The lender of money on bottomry and respondentia has an insurable interest. (Simmonds v. Hodgson, 6 Bingh. 114; in error, 3 B. and Ad. 50; 2 Black. Com. 440.) But a merchant who advances

1 Grant v. Parkinson, Park on Ins. 257; Le Cras v. Hughes, Park on Ins. 269; Henrickson v. Margetson, Park on Ins.; Crawford v. Hunter, 8 Term. Rep. 13; Flint v. Le Mesurier, Park on Ins. 268; Stockdale v. Dunlop, 6 M. and W. 224; Royal Exchange Assurance Company v. M'Swiney, 14 Q. B. 634. But it must be clearly shown that the insured would have made a profit had the loss not occurred (Hodgson v. Glover, 6 East. 316). And the liability of the underwriters will not attach unless the goods are lost by the perils insured against (Chope v. Reynolds, Scott's C. B. Rep. p. 642; Royal Exchange Assurance v. M'Swiney, ut supra).

money for repairs in a foreign port, has no insurable interest.(Stainbank v. Fenning, 11 C. B. Rep., p. 51. Affirmed in error.)

The consignee of goods has an insurable interest, and this, whether he is empowered merely to take possession, or whether he has or has not a lien.(Wolff v. Horncastle.) Consignees who have a lien, and the indorsees of a bill of lading, to whom a general balance is due, have an insurable interest. (Godwin v. London Insurance Company, 1 Burr., 1 W. Bl. 103.)

The mortgagor and mortgagee of a ship has an insurable interest.-(Irving v. Richardson, 2 B. and Ad. 193; S. C. at N. P., 1 Moody and Rob. 153; vide also 17 and 18 Vict., c. 108, § 66-75.)

A creditor to whom goods are assigned in security has an insurable interest.-(Wells v. Philadelphia Insurance Company, 9 Serg. and Rawl. 103; Philips on Ins., vol. i., pp. 129-167.)

A trustee having a legal interest in the thing may insure. (Per Lord Eldon, in Lucena v. Crawford, ut supra; and also Stevenson or White v. Cotton, 24 June 1846, S. and D. 872. The Omoa.)

Vendors and vendees have an insurable interest; as also shipowners and charterers.-(Hobbs v. Hannam, 3 Camp. 93; Oliver v. Greene, 3 Ma. Rep. 133.)

Captors and prize agents have an insurable interest (Stirling v. Vaughan, 2 Camp. 225; Le Cras v. Hughes (Omoa case): This last case decided that the officers of the vessel who took the prize had an insurable interest. There is also an insurable interest in salvage, arising on the re-capture of a

vessel.-(Smith v. Yelton, etc., Mor. 11962, H. of L., 5 Paton's App. Cas. 139; Knill and another v. Hooper, 2 Hurl. and Nor. 277.)

The captain of a vessel has an insurable interest for advances made in the course of the voyage, which he has been instructed to make as against freight (Wilson, etc., v. Martin (1856), 2 H. and G., Exch. R. 684); but he has no insurable interest in wages to be earned, even though part may consist of slaves given to him as wages (Webster v. De Tastet, 7 Term. Rep. p. 157). So, a seaman cannot insure his wages (Webster v. De Tastet, 7 Term. Rep. 157; White v. Wilson, 2 Bos. and Pull. 116); but the captain of a vessel may insure his goods or effects on board (per Lord Mansfield, in Carter v. Boehm, 3 Burr. 1905; Petrie's Exrs. v. Aitchison and Co., 6 Feb. 1841, S. and D., p. 501). The word "effects" of the captain will be taken to include nautical instruments, the chronometer, the clothes, books, furniture, etc.— (Duff v. Mackenzie, 3 Scott, p. 16.)

Where an owner conveyed a vessel to his creditor under a vendition ex facie absolute, but, as shown by the correspondence, was intended as a security for the debt due by him to his creditor, and thereafter insured the vessel, the Court held, on a loss occurring, that the owner had still an insurable interest, the sale being one merely in security.-(Alston, Elliot, and others, v. Campbell and Co., 3 March 1779, 2 Paton's App. Cas. 492.) And though a bottomry bond be granted for repairs, the owners have still an insurable interest. (Smith v. Fleming, 20 Nov. 1849, S. and D. 138.)

It may happen that a party who has no ownership in the property may insure and recover loss under that insurance, where goods or property of others are under his care and possession, or are deposited for some specific purpose. Thus coachbuilders, with whom a gentleman's carriage was left for repair, had insured the property generally on their premises; and a fire having occurred and destroyed the carriage, it would appear that they were entitled to recover from the insurance.-(Dalgliesh v. Buchanan, 17 Jan. 1854, S. and D. 332.)

Where carriers had insured goods stored in their warehouse-part being their own property, and part the property of others—and a loss by fire having occurred, the Insurance Company was held liable to the carriers, although they objected to pay for the goods which did not belong to them as owners, on the ground that, not being their property, they could stipulate no loss.- (London and North Wales Railway Company v. Glynn, 7 W. R. 238; Crowley and others v. Cohen, 3 Bar. and Ad. 478.)

An insolvent has still an insurable interest in goods then in his possession, although these may have vested in his official assignee, on the principle that he was in possession as apparent owner, and responsible to those who were the real owners.-(Marks v. Hamilton, 7 Wel., H. and G., 323; Goulstone v. the Royal Insurance Company, For. and Fin. 276.)

Further, in the case of Donaldson and Pinkerton v. the Manchester Insurance Company, 2 March 1836, S. and D. 601, the insurance effected was on goods, "his own, in trust, or in commission;" and it

was stated, in an opinion of English counsel, taken by the court, that "policies in the form of Mr Donaldson's, by which the insurers become answerable for goods, whether the party who effects the insurance be the absolute owner of them, or only the depositary, are common in England, and sanctioned by the English law;" and judgment went against the underwriters-the whole judges being consulted in giving this decision. So also it was laid down by Lord Eldon in Lucena v. Crawford, 2 Bos. and Pul. 324; vide ante, p. 9.

An insurance of a ship in the usual form, having a clause, "that the said insurance was on profit on cotton, say 150 bales, marked as therein mentioned, said profits valued at L.350; and the parties did agree, that in case of loss or accident, the said policy should be considered sufficient proof of interest,”—it was objected that this was a wagering policy, being taken "on interest or no interest," and therefore contrary to the Act 19 Geo. II., c. 37, § 1. The court held the insurance bad.-(Smith v. Reynolds, 1 Hurl. and Nor. E. R. 221.)

Part owners, whose names do not appear on the register as part owners, cannot recover under an insurance effected by them-it being contrary to the provisions of the statute 26 Geo. III., c. 60 (now regulated by 17 and 18 Vict., c. 104, § 18), in regard to the registry of ownership in British ships, and therefore they can stipulate no interest. -(Scott and Gifford v. Miller and Kerr, 16 Nov. 1832, S. and D., p. 21; Camden v. Anderson, 5 Ter. Rep. 709; Marsh v. Robinson, 3 Esp., p. 98.)

C