Respondentia and bottomry securities must be insured as such, but in an action on a policy on goods, the plaintiff cannot give in evidence a respondentia bond as a proof of interest in the goods which the obligor has on board. Glover v. Black, 3 Burr, 1394. 1 B. 399, 405, 422.

The usage of a particular trade may nevertheless sanction a departure from this rule. Gregory v. Christie, B. R. Tr. 24 Geo. III.

The master's clothes, the ship's provisions, and goods lashed to the deck, cannot be insured as goods. Money, jewels, or bullion, may be insured on the denomination of goods. But the insurer is not liable for the risk of a clandestine exportation of these articles. Jewels, &c. worn by persons on board, are not included in a policy on goods. An insurance on a ship does not comprehend both ship and cargo; and therefore if a merchant insure a ship generally, and she then happen to be laden, the insurer, in case of loss, shall answer only for the ship, but not for the goods.

Voyage-how to be described in the policy. Every fact and circumstance relating to the contract of insurance must be stated, with the most scrupulous regard to truth. The voyage insured must therefore be truly and accurately described in the policy; namely, the time and place to which the risk is to begin, the place of the ship's departure, the place of her destination, and the time when the risk shall end, whether on goods, or on the ship.

If a blank be left for the place either for the ship's departure or destination, the policy shall be void for the uncertainty: as if a ship be insured from New York to this blank being left to prevent an enemy's learning the place of the ship's destination; if the ship in her voyage be cast away, the insured shall not recover his loss on this policy, though there were private instructions for the ship's port of destination. Molloy, b. 2, c. 7, s. 14.

In ordinary policies, the continuance of the risk on goods is generally expressed to be "from the loading thereof on board the ship, and to continue until the same be discharged and safe landed" at the port of delivery, upon the ship on an outward voyage, it is sometimes "from her beginning to load" at some particular place, or "at and from, such place "from a particular day." On an homeward voyage it is generally made to commence "on the ship's arrival" at a particular place abroad, or "at and from" such a place; and continues "till she arrives" at her place of destination, and "is there moored 24 hours in good safety." Certain provisions are often added,

to touch, trade, &c. at certain places out of the direct course of the voyage without being guilty of a deviation.

Sometimes privateers and vessels, which are constantly employed in the coasting trade, are insured for a term, in England by the St. 35, Geo. III. c. 63, s. 12. This term must not exceed twelve calendar months; if it exceed that time, the policy will be void.

Though the description of the voyage be literally true, yet if it be calculated to induce a false conclusion, the policy will be void. Hodson v. Richardson, 1 Bl. 463.

The port or ports of the ship's destination must be truly stated. Murdoch v. Potts, at N. P. after Trim, 1795.

Of parties to the contract. All parties, whether citizens or aliens, may be insured, the only exception is in the case of an alien enemy.

If a policy is not illegal on the face of it, courts will not grant a new trial to let in the defendant to show by evidence that the insurance was upon a trading with the enemy. Gist v. Mason, 1. T. R. 84.

An alien enemy cannot maintain an action on a policy on goods, though they were shipped before the war commenced; nor can agent of such insured maintain an action, though he be a creditor of the insured for more than the sum insured. Brandon v. Nesbitt, 6. T. R. 23. Keller v. &c. Messurier, 4 East, Rep. 396. Ex parte see 1 Vesey's Rep. 64. Griswold v. Waddington, 16 John's Rep. 438. Though of British manufacture exported hence. Briston v. Towdes, 6, T. R. 3. But, a neutral resident in the enemy's country and carrying on trade there in partnership with an alien enemy, may insure his interest in the joint property. Roth v. Edie, 6, T. R. 413.

Subject of Insurance. Ship's freight, goods, merchandise, are the proper objects of insurance.

The insurance of warlike stores sent to enemies is criminal and void. An insurance on any trade, carried on in contravention of an embargo laid by a state is void.

A neutral ship obtains a cargo of provisions in Ireland, after an embargo laid, and takes clearances for a neutral country, but sails for an enemy's port and is taken, this being an illegal traffic the policy is void. Delmada v. Motteux. B. R. M. 25. Geo. III.

If all intercourse with a British colony is prohibited, an insurance on goods intended to be carried thither is illegal and void. Johnson v. Sutton, Doug. 254.

All goods the traffic in which is not prohibited by the law of the U. States, are lawful goods within the meaning of the policy, though they

may be contraband of war, or owned by a subject of a belligerent. 1 Johns, Cas. 1. 2 Johns, Cas. 77.

An insurance cannot be made on provisions sent in a neutral ship to a British colony while in the hands of an enemy. Gist. v. Mason,

1 T. R. 84.

In a case upon the profits of a voyage the objection in point of law was, that it came within the meaning of wagering policies. The court however determined upon argument, that it was an insurable interest. Bartletley v. Kussans, Sitting K. B. T. 42, Geo. III.

A sailor cannot insure his wages, or any thing he is to receive at the end of the voyage in lieu thereof. Webster v. De Tasset, 7 Term. R. 157. But it has been held that mariners can insure those wages they are to receive abroad, or goods purchased with their wages in order to bring home.

INSURABLE INTEREST. Insurance being a contract of indemnity from loss or damage, arising from an uncertain event, there cannot be an indemnity without a loss, nor a loss without an interest; a policy therefore without interest, is not an insurance but a mere wager.

Different persons having each a qualified property in goods, may insure them to their full value. Smith v. Lascelles, 2, T. R. 188. A reasonable expectation of profit, or a well grounded expectation of a future interest in the thing insured, is an insurable interest.

A trustee, a consignee, or an agent for prizes may insure; also a captain who makes a capture, may insure his prize.

A general agent in whom a consignment devolves in consequence of the consignee's refusal to take the goods, may insure them as agent to the consignor, or in his own right, if he accepted bills on account of them. Freight can only be due from the legal owner of the ship, therefore he only can insure it. No person can have either a legal or equitable title to a ship, unless he is named in the register. The lenders upon bottomry and respondentia have an insurable interest in the sum lent. The owner of the ship or goods has only an insurable interest in the surplus value above the sum lent. But the usage of trade may take a case out of this rule upon an insurance on goods, specie, and effects. In the India trade, the owner may recover for money laid out for the use of the ship, and for which he charged respondentia interest, it being the usage of the trade to insure in this form. Gregory v. Christie, B. R. T. Term, 24, Geo. III.

Wager policy. This is usually conceived in the terms, "interest or

no interest," or "without farther proof of interest than the policy," to preclude all inquiry into the interest of the insured; and as a consequence of the insured's having no interest in the pretended subject of the policy, it follows that the insurer cannot be liable for any partial loss. A partial loss is not an event sufficiently defined and accurate to be the criterion of a wager, and nothing but that sort of misfortune which is considered as amounting to total loss can decide it. The parties mean to play for the whole stake, and when the underwriter pays a loss, he cannot, as in the case upon interest, claim any benefit from what may have been saved. To preclude all claims of that sort the words "free of average and without benefit of salvage," are always introduced in wager policies.

In several cases wager policies have been held to be good, but the St. 19. Geo. II, c. 37, has imposed some wholesome restrictions upon it, by enacting, "that no insurance shall be made in any ship or ships belonging to his majesty or any of his subjects, or any goods or effects laden on board such ships, interest or no interest, or without further proof of interest, than the policy, or by way of gaming or wagering, or without benefit of salvage to the insurer, and that every such insurance shall be void. But by s. 2, it is provided, that insurance upon private ships of war, fitted out by any of his majesty's subjects, solely to cruise against his enemies, may be made by or for the owners thereof, interest or no interest, free of average, and without benefit of salvage to the insurer, and by s. 3, merchandises or effects from any port or places in Europe or America in the possession of the crown of Spain or Portugal may be assured in such way and manner as if this act had not been made. This clause do not extend in case of war with those powers.

The regulations and restrictions of this statute being confined to insurance on ships belonging to his majesty and his subjects, and to goods and effects laden thereon, insurance upon the ships and goods of foreigners are not within the act, but remain the same as before the passing of it. Thilleson v. Fletcher, Doug. 304.

In the state of New-York, it is settled, that a policy in which the insured had not any interest, and which was in fact nothing more than a wager or bet, between the parties to the contract, whether such a voyage would be performed or such a ship arrive in safety, was a valid policy, provided the wager be not contrary to good morals or sound policy. 1 Carr & Payne 613.

In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, all wager policies are void. Cited 3 v. Kent's Com. 226.

The origin of the difference between open and valued policies is as follows:

It being sometimes troublesome for the merchant to prove the value of his interest, or to ascertain the quantity of his loss, he gave the insurer an higher premium to agree to estimate his interest at a precise sum. To recover on this kind of policy, the insured need only prove that he had an interest, without showing the value. If however it could be made appear that the interest proved was merely a cover to a wager, in order to evade the statute, such policy would no doubt be void. Lewis v. Rucher, 2, Burr, 1167.

In an insurance which had been made upon any of the packet boats which should sail from Lisbon to Falmouth, or such other ports in England as his majesty should direct, for one year, upon any kind of goods and merchandises whatsoever: It was agreed that the goods and merchandises should be valued at the sum insured on such packet boat, without further proof of interest than the policy, and to make no return of premium for want of interest, being on bullion and goods. The insured had an interest on board the Hanover packet, which was lost within the time mentioned in the policy.

The court held that this was a policy of a peculiar sort; and was an exception out of the statute, 19 Geo. II, c. 37, coming in within the proviso of the 3d section. It was a mixed policy; partly a wager policy, and partly an open one; it was also a valued policy and fairly so, without fraud or misrepresentation: therefore the loss having happened, the insured was entitled as for a total loss. 4 Burr, 1966.

A small interest will not take the case out of the statute; thus, an agreement in consideration of 20l. to pay 1,000l. if a ship did not save her passage to China, was held a wager insurance within the act, though the party had some goods on board. Kent v. Bird, Cowp. 583.

Also by 19, Geo. II, c. 37, s. 6 and 7. In actions on policies, plaintiff to declare 15 days after request, what sums he has insured, and what sums he has borrowed on respondentia or bottomry.

Persons sued upon policies may pay money into court. By 28, Geo. II, c. 20, s. 12, and 38 Geo. III, c. 76, s. 4. Ships sailing without convoy or separating without leave, the insurances with respect to the property of the master, or any person privy to the offence, shall be void; and if any person negotiating or transacting any settlement upon such insurance, or allowing on account or otherwise any sum of