policy.-(Amicable Society v. Bolland, 4 Bligh, N. S.; 2 Dow and Cl. 1; 3 Ross, L. C.)

2. FIRE INSURANCE.

In fire insurance, it has been seen (p. 7, ante) that it is necessary that the party insured should have an interest in the property both at the time of insuring and at the time of the loss.

Both the landlord and tenant in an agricultural lease, or in the lease of an urban tenement, have an insurable interest in the subject of the lease, each to the extent of his interest in the subject.-(Hunter on Landlord and Tenant, vol. ii., p. 248; vol. i., p. 374.)1

Sometimes, by express stipulations in the lease, the tenant is taken bound by the landlord to insure the subject,-1st, the buildings, and 2d, the crop and stocking in the barns,-and to pay the annual premium therefor. But apart from express stipulations, where the tenant has insured, it has been held in one case, where the farm steading, etc., was burned by fire, that the landlord was entitled to claim his rents past due, up to the day of the accident, out of the sum obtained from the insurance; but not for rent subsequent to that date, or for repair of the buildings. -(Scottish Union Insurance Company v. Macintosh, 21 Jan. 1830, 9 Sh. and D. 310.)

1 Vide "Consequential Loss," Chap. XIII.

CHAPTER IV.

RISK COVERED BY THE POLICY.

IT is of importance to know, in marine and fire insurances, what kind of risk the policy will cover, under the usual terms of these policies.

This, of course, must vary in many cases; and it is necessary carefully to analyse the several cases, in order to ascertain correctly what the policy will cover in each.

1. MARINE INSURANCE.

In the general case, and in the ordinary forms of the policy now in use, in marine insurances, the policy covers-1st, loss by fire, pirates, rovers, and thieves; 2d, barratry of the master and crew, unless this is exempted from in the policy. Smuggling on their part will be barratry.—(Havelock v. Hancell, 3 Term. Rep. 227; Vallejo v. Wheeler, Cowp. 143.)

The usual form of the marine policy runs thus: -"All perils of the seas, men of war, fire, enemies, pirates, rovers, thieves, letters of marque and countermarque, surprisals, takings at sea, arrests, restraints, and detainments of all kings, princes, and people,"

etc.

Where the vessel is insured in these terms, the underwriters will be liable for loss by fire occasioned by lightning, or by the enemy, or by spontaneous combustion.(Gordon v. Remmington, 1 Campb. 123.)

It would appear from one case, where a cargo of hemp was insured on board of a vessel from London to the coast of Devonshire, and destroyed by fire, that if the fire has originated in the hold of the vessel, from the damaged or wet state of the hemp when put on board, causing it to effervesce and take fire, this will not be a loss falling under the policy, because the owners of cargo would be to blame for placing the cargo on board in that state, and therefore the underwriters would not be liable; but where it is not proved that the cargo was placed on board in that state, and spontaneous combustion arises, they will be liable.-(Boyd v. Dubois, 3 Camp. 132.)

So, if a vessel insured in the ordinary form is fired into and sunk, under the notion that she is an enemy's ship, this will not be a loss by the perils of the sea covered by the policy.-(Cullen v. Butler, 4 Camp. 289.)

Nor will loss from rats eating holes in the ship's bottom (Hunter v. Potts, 4 Camp. 203). Nor destruction of the vessel by the sea-worm. -(Lovell v. M'Millan, 1 June 1809, 15 Fac. Coll., p. 341; Oliverson v. Loughman, referred to by Baron Gurney in Weir v. Aberdien, 2 B. and Ald. 320.)

If the vessel suffer damage in a dry harbour from turning over, partly by accident, and partly from the force of the weather, this will be a peril of the sea covered by the policy.-(Napier v. Wood, 18 Nov. 1825, S. and D., p. 19.)

In like manner, where the insurance on the ship. was "at and from any port or ports, place or places, in port, or at sea, in Government service." The vessel

was engaged by the Government as a transport, and was ordered into Boulogne, which is a dry harbour, with a hard, uneven bottom. She was moored near the quays. At night, when the tide left her, the crew heard a cracking noise in the ship, as if of something breaking. When the tide again rose, there was a considerable swell in the harbour, and she struck the ground heavily several times. In the morning it was found that eighteen of the knees were broken; and it was held that this was a loss by the perils of the sea insured against.—(Fletcher v. Inglis, 2 B. and Ald. 315.)

So where the insurance was of a ship on a time policy, "at sea and in port," the perils insured against in the policy being, "the seas, men of war, fire, and all other perils or misfortunes." The ship proceeded on a voyage to St John, New Brunswick, and there discharged her cargo; after which she was put into the graving dock for repair, near to a wharf, and whilst lying against the graving wharf, she was blown over by the violence of the wind and weather, and sustained considerable damage by striking the ground. She was sold, and the insured claimed for an average loss. Chief-Justice Abbot held that the underwriters were liable by the express terms of the policy signed by them.-(Phillips, etc., v. Barber, 5 Bar. and Ald. 161.)

But where the ship is insured against loss "at sea and in port," this will not cover damage sustained while the vessel is on land. Thus a vessel so insured required, in the course of the voyage insured, to be hove down on the beach to be repaired and chalked.

She was bilged by the operation; and Lord Mansfield held that the accident had happened while the vessel was on land, and therefore was a damage not covered by the policy. (Thomson v. Whitmore, 3 Taunt. 227.)

Yet the above case must be considered to have proceeded on the limited terms of the policy, and on the ground that these did not embrace such an accident. Where the terms of the policy are sufficiently broad, and conceived so as fairly to cover such a loss, that loss will be comprehended. Thus in a policy "against the perils of the sea, and all other perils and misfortunes." The vessel had been in dock undergoing repair; and in moving her from dock, the tackling by which she was supported broke, by which the vessel received damage, so as to make her unfit for the voyage insured; and it was held that the underwriters were liable for the loss, under the express terms of the policy.-(Devaux v. I'Anson, 8 May 1839, Bingh. New C. 519.)

Of course the loss which the policy is intended to cover will always, in some degree, depend on the stipulations in the policy. It is therefore material to observe these, and to have the loss or risks clearly expressed which the insurance is intended to cover.

BARRATRY.

It has been already stated, that the marine insurance covers barratry of the master and crew, unless specially exempted from in the policy; but deviation from the due course of the voyage from gross ignorance of the captain will not be barratry, nor his