Disclosrequired. ures Reinsur ance presumed to be against liability. Original insured has are known to be good, or first class, to make profit without risking anything, and at the same time retain the custom of the insurer, who, if refused insurance at any time, although it might be from the best of motives, would not be likely to call again, hence his risk is taken, and to indemnify themselves a reinsurance on the same risk is effected. 2647. Where an insurer obtains reinsurance, he must communicate all the representations of the original insured, and also all the knowledge and information he possesses, whether previously or subsequently acquired, which are material to the risk. NOTE.-Insurer, when attempting to effect a reinsurance, must not only communicate all that the original insurer communicated to him, but all that he knows himself, either therefrom or has subsequently learned concerning the risk.-2 Duer Ins., p. 429. See, also, case in point: Bowery Ins. Co. vs. N. Y. Fire Ins. Co., 17 Wend., p. 359. 2648. A reinsurance is presumed to be a contract of indemnity against liability, and not merely against damage. NOTE.-See Ang. Ins., Sec. 138; Hastie vs. De Peyster, 3 Caines, p. 190; also, notes to the two preceding sections. 2649. The original insured has no interest in a no interest. contract of reinsurance. NOTE.-Herkenrath vs. Am. Ins. Co., 3 Barb. Ch., p. 63; Carrington vs. Com. Fire Ins. Co., 1 Bosw., p. 152. It is remarked in note to Sec. 2646, ante, that it was everywhere customary to reinsure. Here, in this Code, by Sec. 428, insurers (marine or fire) are required, whenever any one risk exceeds one tenth part of their capital stock actually paid in, to reinsure such excess. This is done for the more ample security of the insured. CHAPTER II. MARINE INSURANCE. NOTE.-Rules respecting marine insurance which are ARTICLE I. DEFINITION OF MARINE INSURANCE. III. CONCEALMENT. IV. REPRESENTATIONS. V. IMPLIED WARRANTIES. VI. THE VOYAGE, AND DEVIATION. VII. Loss. VIII. ABANDONMENT. IX. MEASURE OF INDEMNITY. ARTICLE I. DEFINITION OF MARINE INSURANCE. SECTION 2655. Marine insurance, what. insurance, 2655. Marine insurance is an insurance against Marine risks connected with navigation, to which a ship, cargo, what. freightage, profits, or other insurable interest in movable property, may be exposed during a certain voyage or a fixed period of time. NOTE.-See 1 Arnould, Chap. 2; see, also, Sec. 2664, post. For definitions and information on this subject generally, see Phillips on Insurance, p. 1; Arnould on Marine Insurance, vol. 1, p. 15; Marshall on Marine Insurance, p. 2; Dixon on Marine Insurance, p. 26; 3 Kent Commentaries, p. 253. WHAT IS COVERED BY A POLICY ON SHIP.-The ship as a subject of insurance includes the body, tackle, apparel, ordnance, furniture, boats, and whatever is necessary to equip it for the voyage. The guns, ammunition, etc., of an armed ship constitute a part of its insurable value.-2 Valin, p. 55; 1 Emerigon, p. 277. The provisions put on board the ship, when she sails, for the use of the crew on the voyage are included under the word "furniture."-1 Caines, p. 80; Brough vs. Whitmore, 4 T. R., p. 206. "Outfit" is the word sometimes used to denote the necessary stores and provisions put on board a ship for the use of the crew on the voyage, and in this sense it is used by Lord Ellenborough when he says: "Hull and outfit are both protected by insurance on ship."-Hill vs. Patten, 8 East, p. 375; Forbes vs. Aspenall, 13 East, pp. 323, 325. In whaling voyages the word "outfit" has a peculiar sense and means the fishing stores of the ships so employed, viz: the harpoons, lances, spears, whale lines, for the purpose of catching whales or seals on the voyage, and the casks, cisterns, boilers, etc., for preparing and containing oil and blubber. It is established that "outfits" in this sense are not covered by a general insurance on ship.-Hoskins vs. Pickersgill, 3 Dougl., p. 222; Gale vs. Laurie, 5 B. & Cr., pp. 156, 164; and see Hill vs. Patten, 8 East, p. 373; Arnould on Mar. Ins., p. 19; 1 Marshall Ins., p. 241; see particularly Phillips Ins., pp. 240, 253. The boats of a ship are included.-Blackett vs. R. Ex. Ass. Co., 2 Crompt. & J. Exch., p. 244. The question has been raised whether the description "the ship" covers the boat slung at the stern davits--and it was held that the boat was thereby covered.-Hall vs. Ocean Ins. Co., 21 Pick., p. 472. But it seemed in that case that it was simply a question whether it was not unusual to carry the boat in that manner, and that thereby the risk of the insurer was increased. Says Mr. Phillips, in commenting on the case: "If the carrying of the boat so slung is usual under like circumstances, or if it does not enhance the risk of the boat, and that unnecessarily, it is still covered under a policy on the 'ship' as one of its appurtenances.-Phillips Ins., Sub. Sec. 465. A policy on the ship covers not only the ship as it may be at the time of the commencement of the risk, but also as it may be altered by repairs.-12 East, p. 565; 4 Taunt., p. 367. The question, however, as to the alteration of the subject so as to change the risk will be open to consideration in this case as well as under a policy on a house. Charts, compasses, and a chronometer may also be considered as included in the term "ship."—See Phillips Ins., Sub. Sec. 466-468. A policy on "ship," even when effected by one who owns both cargo and ship, cannot extend however to protect the cargo. For what is included in term "ship" see also 1 Arnould Ins., Chap. 2, p. 17. CARGO. This term is used to include goods, wares, merchandise, and property generally. The ordinances of some countries have provided that the general description of "goods, wares, and merchandise" should not apply to perishable commodities, or those subject to leakage, unless they were particularly named (1 Magens, p 9., Sec. 14; Weskett, Tit. Goods); but there is no such distinction in either England or the United States. The terms cargo, goods, wares, and merchandise include precious metals, coined or uncoined, money (dollars), (Thomas vs. Royal Exch Ass. Co., 1 Price Ech., p. 96), and even the money which was the proceeds of the sale of the goods originally insured by the policy (American Ins. Co. vs. Griswold, 14 Wend., p. 399; and see Coggeshall vs. Amer. Ins. Co., 3 Wend, p. 283); but the terms goods, wares, and merchandise do not include bills of exchange (Thomas vs. Royal Ex. Ass. Co., 1 Price Exch., p. 95), nor articles of clothing, for use by persons on board (Marshall Ins., p. 727)—but perhaps an emigrant's equipment is covered-(Wilkinson vs. Hyde, 3 C. B., [N. S.], p. 30; 27 L. J., [C. P.], p. 116; Duff vs. McKenzie, 3 C. B., [N. S.], p. 16; 26 L. J., [C. P.], p. 313), nor rings, watches, jewelry, etc., belonging to persons on board and not intended for trade; nor can the outfit or appurtenances belonging to the ship be ever considered as part of the cargo. A policy on goods and "proceeds" or "returns," applies to return goods, shipped on the credit of the outward cargo, left at a foreign port to be sold (Haven vs. Gray, 12 Mass., p. 71; Whitney vs. Am. Ins. Co., 3 Cowen, p. 210; S. C., 5 Cowen, p. 712); but a policy upon certain goods, for an outward passage, and the " proceeds" thereof home, does not apply to the same goods brought back.-Dow vs. Hope Ins. Co., 1 Hall N. Y., p. 170; Dow vs. Whetten, 8 Wend., p. 160. Goods carried on deck, as they are exposed to greater hazard than goods carried in the ordinary way, are not covered by a general insurance in the common form on goods, unless they are so carried by virtue of any general and well known custom of the trade in which the insurance is effected.-See 1 Arnould Ins., p. 25, and note. For timber on deck, unless the policy be "in and over all," the insurer is, by usage, not liable.-Miller vs. Titherington, 6 H. & N., p. 278; 30 L. J. (Ex.), p. 217; Taunton Copper Co. vs. Merchants' Ins. Co., 22 Pick., p. 108; Smith vs. Miss. F. & M. Ins. Co., 11 La., p. 142. Insurance on goods on board of a certain vessel, for a certain voyage or period, admits of a change of the goods, and applies to other goods the proceeds of those shipped, where the policy-by the description of the risk, the character and 22-vol. ii. length of the voyage, or the length of the period, etc.indicates that they may be or are to be changed.— Coggeshall vs. Am. Ins. Co., 3 Wend., p. 283. But liberty to barter, exchange, etc., does not cover cargo landed, nor "proceeds" before they are loaded.-Harrison vs. Ellis, 7 Ell. & B., p. 465. A policy upon the lading of a certain vessel, employed in a certain navigation for a specified period, will be applied to all the lading of all the vessels within such period.— Crowley vs. Cohen, 3 Barn. & Ad., p. 478; Henshaw vs. Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Blatchf. C. C., p. 99. An insurance on "all lawful goods" has been held to apply to contraband goods as well as other.-Seton vs. Low, 1 Johns. Cas., p. 1; see, also, Skidmore vs. Desdoity, 2 Johns. Cas., p. 77; Juhel vs. Rhinelander, 2 Johns. Cas., pp. 120 and 487. Provender, taken on board for mules, was held not to be covered under the description of cargo.-Wolcott vs. Eagle Ins. Co., 4 Pick., p. 429. A policy on "cargo" has been held not to apply to mules and horses, the underwriter having no notice that such was the cargo. They are subjects of particular insurance, and are not covered by the general words cargo or goods.-Wolcott vs. Eagle Ins. Co.. 4 Pick., p. 429; Allegres Administrators vs. Maryland Ins. Co., 2 Gill & J., p. 136; see Weskett, Tit. Goods. A policy on the cargo of a ship, "now on a whaling voyage," etc., was held to apply to the proceeds of the voyage, i. e., the oil, etc., taken.-Paddock vs. Franklin Ins. Co., 11 Pick., p. 227. The term "property " is more comprehensive than the other terms. It has been held to include bank notes, moneys, etc.-Whiton vs. Old Colony Ins. Co., 2 Metc., p. 1. For further information as to what is covered by a general policy on "cargo, goods, wares, merchandise, and property," and for explanation of certain terms sometimes contained in policies, see 1 Phillips Ins., Sub. Secs. 431-460, and notes; 1 Arnould Ins., pp. 22-28, and notes; 1 Magens, p. 9; Weskett, Tit. Goods; 1 Emerigon, p. 297, Chap. 10; Park, p. 26; Marsh, p. 319; American Ins. Co. vs. Griswold, 14 Wend., p. 399; Coggeshall vs. Am. Ins. Co., 3 Wend., p. 283; Thomas vs. Royal Ex. Ass. Co., 1 Price Exch., p. 95; Duplanty vs. Commercial Ins. Co., Anth. N. Y., p. 114; Hill vs. Patten, 8 East, p. 373; Robinson vs. Touray, 3 Campb., p. 158; 1 Maul. & S., p. 217; Crowley vs. Cohen, 3 Barn. & Ad., p. 478; Atkins vs. Boylston Ins. Co., 5 Metc., p. 439; Kewley vs. Ryan, 2 H. Blackst., p. 343; E. Carver. Co. vs. Manf. Ins. Co., 6 Gray Mass., p. 214; Harman vs. Kingston, 3 Campb., p. 150; Crawford vs. Hunter, |