Advances on freight. Freight for part of the voyage, or time. What is covered by policy on freight. the new Italian Code, a policy on the freight of goods on board is void.1 There can be no doubt that sums paid by the charterer or his agent, as an advance of part of the freight, are also insurable by him in this country. The only question is, whether he can insure them under the general term freight, or must describe them specifically in the policy; and this depends, as we shall see hereafter, on the particular terms of the charterparty.2 It was laid down by Lord Kenyon, at Nisi Prius, that freight could not be insured for part of the intended voyage;3 but this position, unjustified by principle, was subsequently overruled by Lord Ellenborough and the Court of King's Bench, and it is now quite clear that freight, like any other subject, may be insured either for part or the whole of the voyage or of the time over which it is likely to extend.1 Freight must be insured co nomine in the policy, either by inserting the words on freight in the margin, or appending them at the foot of the instrument. Such a policy would cover not only freight in its strictest acceptation, but the chartered hire of the vessel, the increased value to the owner from carriage of his goods in his own ship, and we have prohibition of insurance of freight 1 Co. di Commercio, art. 461. 6 China Ins. Co., 35 L. T., N. S. 884; 3 Murdock v. Potts, A.D. 1795; see 1 Marshall, Ins. 332; 2 Park, Ins. 634. 4 Taylor. Wilson, 15 East, 324; Hall v. Brown, 2 Dow's P. C. 367; Michael v. Gillespy, 26 L. J. (C. P.) 306; 12 C. B., N. S. 627. 5 Etches v. Aldan, 1 Man. & Ry. 157; S. P., Clark v. Ocean Ins. Co., 16 Pickering's R. 289. Flint v. Flemyng, 1 B. & Ad. 45; Devaux v. J'Anson, 5 Bing. N. C. 519. See per curiam, Miller v. Woodfall, 8 E. & B. 493; 27 L. J. (Q. B.) 120. very little doubt payments made in advance on account of either the first or the second of these classes of freight.1 Certain expressions attributed to Lord Tenterden in the report of Winter v. Haldimand respecting advances on account of chartered hire, as though a more specific description were necessary in a policy intended to cover them, must be understood, in accordance with the general principle of insurance law respecting freight laid down by him in a previous case, as indicating rather what description would have served the purpose of the assured under the circumstances before him, than anything that was indispensably requisite.3 charterer who the owner, ship, reserv ing the freight. Whether a charterer who hires a vessel for a voyage at a As to the certain rate per month, payable on completion of the voyage, carries goods can insure the freight payable to himself for the use of the on freight, or ship in carrying the goods of other persons, under a general who sells his policy on freight; and whether such a policy will cover the interest of a party who has sold his vessel, reserving to himself a right to receive the freight for the voyage insured, has been doubted in the United States. But neither in that country nor in this have such doubts prevailed against the opinion that such persons have an interest which may be covered by a valid policy on freight. In some respects similar to freight, in others very different, Passage Money. is our next subject of insurance, Passage Money. It is not insurable as freight, for there is no usage in insurance law in this country so to designate passage money. In the absence therefore of anything on the face of the policy to show that passage money is intended by or to be included under "freight," this latter term, if there is any freight properly 1 See Allison v. Bristol Mar. Ins. Co., 1 App. Cases, 209; Wilson v. Martin, 11 Exch. 684, and cases supra, p. 34, note 2; and Hall v. Janson, 4 E. & B. 500. 2 Flint v. Flemyng, 1 B. & Ad. 48. 3 Winter v. Haldimand, 2 B. & Ad. 649, 654, 658. Riley v. Delafield, 7 Johns. 522; cited 1 Phillips, no. 480. 5 Mellen v. Natchez Ins. Co., 1 Hall, 452. Statutory liabilities. so called to which the policy may apply, will be confined- 993 The Passenger Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 119),4 in great measure superseding the common law on the points referred to, without taking away any common law rights previously possessed by the passenger, imposes certain liabilities on the owners and masters of passenger ships, in virtue of which they are so far insurers that, notwithstanding the wreck or loss of the ship, the surviving passengers must be forwarded by them to their place of destination. The statute then proceeds to countervail these novel obligations by enabling the persons subjected to them to cover these statutory risks by a policy of insurance." Under a policy against all costs, charges and liabilities to which the owner or charterer might be subjected under sections 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51 of the (now repealed Passengers Act) 15 & 16 Vict. c. 44, the owner recovered against the underwriter for money expended in forwarding the passengers to their ultimate port from New Providence, off which place the vessel in the course of her voyage had been totally lost. A year after, under another policy "on 1 Denoon v. Home and Colonial Ass. Co., L. R., 7 C. P. 341. 2 See Maclachlan on Shipping, c. vii. Passengers. The 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119 is amended by the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 51; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 73; 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85; 38 & 39 Vict. o. 66; and 39 & 40 Vict. c. 80. 3 Per Lord Campbell, C. J., in Gibson v. Bradford, 3 E. & B. 516; 24 L. J. (Q. B.) 159, 160. This statute is amended by 26 & 27 Vict. c. 51. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119, s. 58. 6 Ibid. s. 55. 7 Gibson v. Bradford, 3 E. & B. 516; 24 L. J. (Q. B.) 159. passage money of emigrants, to pay a loss pro rata subject to (the same clauses almost as in the foregoing case) and against these risks only," the owner sought to recover the money spent in provisions for the emigrants during six weeks' stay at Fayal whilst the ship was being repaired after sea damage, and failed in his suit simply because his obligation to maintain the passengers during the detention was imposed by a section not included in the policy.1 We come now to deal with Profits and Commission as Profits and Commission. subjects of marine insurance. The same reasons which led to the prohibition of insurance Profits. in France on freight, have led to the prohibition of insurance there on expected profits.2 In Germany, in Holland, in Sweden, in Portugal, and in the United States, as in this country, insurances on expected profits are lawful. The grounds on which they are so considered are expressed with admirable force and clearness in the following passage from the judgment of Lawrence, J., in the case of Barclay r. Cousins. "As insurance is a contract of indemnity, it cannot be said to be extended beyond what the design of such species of contract will embrace, if it be applied to protect men from those losses and disadvantages which, but for the perils insured against, the assured would not suffer; and in every Willis v. Cooke, 25 L. J. (Q. B.) 16; 5 E. & B. 641. 2 See 1 Emerigon, c. viii. s. 9, pp. 236-239, with the commentary of Boulay-Paty. See also Ord. de la Marine, liv. 3, t. 6, art. 15; Code de Commerce, art. 347. Spain and Denmark follow the French code in this prohibition. - 3 In Holland, insurance on profits has long been practised, and is now permitted by law, on condition that the expected profits are separately valued in the policy and the goods specified out of which they are to be What entitles assured to recover. maritime adventure, the adventurer is liable to be deprived, not only of the things immediately subjected to the perils insured against, but also of the advantages to be derived from the arrival of those things at their destined port. If they do not arrive, his loss is not merely that of his goods, but of the benefits which he might obtain, were his money employed in an undertaking not subject to the perils. If it be allowable for the merchant to protect capital, subject to the risk of maritime commerce, by insuring it, why may he not protect those advantages he is in danger of losing by their being exposed to the same risks? It is surely not an improper encouragement of trade to provide, that merchants, in case of adverse fortune, should not only not lose the principal adventure, but that the principal should not, in consequence of such bad fortune, be totally unproductive; and that men of small fortunes should be encouraged to engage in commerce, by their having the means of preserving their capitals entire." Such are the principles upon which insurances on expected profits are allowed in this country. Profits may be insured equally by valued and by open policies. But, whether insured by one or the other, it is the law of this country (as we shall see more at large when treating of the insurable interest of the parties), that the assured cannot recover unless he prove that, but for the intervention of the perils insured against, some profit would in fact have been realized by the sale of his goods on arrival. He must also prove that the goods, from the sale of which the profits were expected, have, at one time or other, during the period covered by the policy, been actually exposed to the perils insured against,* 1 Per Lawrence, J., Barclay v. 2 Eyre v. Glover, 3 Camp. 276. there a conclusive presumption that some profit would have accrued, had the goods arrived, and upon this the valuation in the policy attaches; 1 Parsons, Ins. 195. McSwiney v. Royal Exch. Ass. Comp. 14 Q. B. 634; S. C., in error, ibid. 646; Halhead v. Young, 6 E. & |