« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
8 Term, p. 13 n. a; Henchman vs. Offley, 3 Dougl., p. 135; Faris vs. Newburyport Ins. Co., 3 Mass., p. 476; Stillwell vs. Staples, 19 N. Y., p. 401; Edwards vs. St. Louis Perpet. Ins. Co., 7 Mo., p. 382; Worseley vs. Wood, 6 Term, p. 710; S. C. 2 H. Blackst., p. 574; Dowville vs. Sun M. Ins. Co., 12 La. Ann., p. 259; Haven vs. Gray, 12 Mass., p. 71; Whitney vs. Am. Ins. Co., 3 Cowen, p. 210; S. C. 5 Cowen, p. 712; Dow vs. Hope Ins. Co., 1 Hall N. Y., p. 170; Dow vs. Whetten, 8 Wend., p. 160; Harrison vs. Ellis, 7 Ell. & B., p. 465; Henshaw vs. Mut. Ins. Co., 2 Blatchf. C. C., p. 99; Atkins vs. Boylston Ins. Co., 5 Metc., p. 439; Seton vs. Low, 1 John. Cas., p. 1; Skidmore vs. Desdoity, 2 Johns. Cas., p. 77; Juhel vs. Rhinelander, 2 Johns. Cas., pp. 120, 487; Murray vs. Columbian Ins. Co., 11 Johns., p. 302; Rickman vs. Carstairs, 5 Barn. & Ad., p. 651; S. C. 2 Nev. & M., p. 502; Huntley Leathley, 10 Barn. & C., p. 585; affirmed 7 Bingh., p. 517; Grant vs. Paxton, 1 Taunt., p. 463; Col. Ins. Co. vs. Catlett, 12 Wheat., p. 383; Sorbe vs. Merch. Ins. Co., 6 La., p. 185; Courtnay vs. Miss. F. & M. Ins. Co., 12 La., p. 233; McCargo vs. Merch. Ins. Co., 10 Rob. La., p. 334; Sea Ins. Co. vs. Fowler, 21 Wend., p. 600; Ballard vs. Merchants Ins. Co., 9 La., p. 258; New York Ins. Co. vs. Roberts, 4 Duer, p. 141; Shearer vs. Louisiana Ins. Co., 14 La. Ann., p. 797; Wolcott vs. Eagle Ins. Co., 4 Pick., p. 429; Allegres Administrators vs. Maryland Ins. Co., 2 Gill & J., p. 136; Paddock vs. Franklin Ins. Co., 11 Pick, p. 227; Whiton vs. Old Col. Ins. Co., 2 Metc., p. 1; Wiggin vs. Merch. Ins. Co., 7 Pick., p. 271; Holbrook vs. Brown, 2 Mass. p. 280; Astor vs. United Ins. Co., 7 Cowen, p. 202; Child vs. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Sandf., p. 26; Palmer vs. Pratt, 2 Bing., p. 185; Taunton Copper Co. vs. Merch. Ins. Co., 22 Pick., p. 108; Smith vs. Miss. F. & M. Ins. Co., 11 La., p. 142; Rogers vs. Merch. Ins. Co., 1 Stor. C. C., p. 603; Milward vs. Hibbert, 3 Q. B., p. 120; De Costa vs. Edmonds, 4 Campb., p. 142; Blackhouse vs. Ripley, 1 Park. Ins., p. 14; Gould vs. Oliver, 2 Mann. & G., p. 208; Merch. Ins. Co. vs. Shillito, 15 Ohio St., p. 559; Toledo Ins. Co. vs. Spears, 16 Ind., p. 52.
FREIGHTAGE-WHAT INTEREST IS COVERED Under THE TERM.-A policy on freightage (or freight as it has heretofore been called-see note to Sec. 2661, post) generally, for successive passages or for a certain period, usually applies to whatever amount of freightage may be pending at different times successively.— Hugg vs. Augusta Ins. Co., 7 How., p. 595. See as to
the amount of insurable interest to which a policy applies.-Davy vs. Hallett, 3 Caines, p. 16; Ins. Co. vs. Mordecai, 22 How., p. 111. And insurance against total loss only, is held to cover total loss of freightage pending, though some has been already earned.-Willard vs. Millers' Ins. Co., 30 Mo., p. 35. Where owner of ship owns also cargo, a policy on freightage will cover the interest on the transportation of the cargo on the voyage-that is, the interest which he has in placing his goods in another market.-Flint vs. Lemyng, 1 Barn. & Ad., p. 45; 1 Lloyd & W. Cas., p. 257; Wolcott vs. E. Ins. Co., 4 Pick., p. 429; Dumas vs. Jones, 4 Mass., p. 647. See, also, Hart vs. Del. Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C., p. 346. A policy on freightage "at and from " a place does not cover freightage for bringing a cargo to that place.-Bell vs. Bell, Camp., p. 475. Insurance on freightage generally, to certain ports, is valid, though the cargo is destined to and freightage is payable only on arrival at a subsequent port.-Murdock vs. Potts, Park., p. 451; Marsh. Ins., p. 326; Taylor vs. Wilson, 15 East, p. 324; Hughes vs. Union Ins. Co., 3 Wheat., p. 159. And on freightage from one certain port to another with leave to take on goods at intermediate ports, covers freightage of goods so taken.-Barclay vs. Stirling, 5 Maule & S., p. 6. If articles carried on deck would not be included under the general description of "cargo, goods, wares, merchandise, and property," etc., compensation for so transporting them will not be covered by the term freightage.-Adams vs. Warren Ins. Co., 22 Pick., p. 163. Freightage of live animals not covered by the term freightage, insurers not being notified of the fact.Wolcott vs. Eagle Ins. Co., 4 Pick., p. 429; Allegres Adm'rs vs. Maryland Ins. Co., 2 Gill. & J., p. 136; S. C., 6 Har. & J., p. 408. Whether a charterer, at the risk of freightage, can cover his interest as freightage generally without specifying it, see Riley vs. Delafield, 7 Johns., p. 522; see, also, Mellen vs. National Ins. Co., 1 Hall., N. Y., p. 452; Taylor vs. Wilson, 15 East, p. 324; Oliver vs. Green, 3 Mass., p. 133; Bartlett vs. Walker, 13 Mass., p. 267. It has been held that a charterer may insure the amount of freightage which is on his account and risk, and at the same time the owner may insure his own interest in the freight by the same description.-Cases last cited, and Clark vs. Ocean Ins. Co., 16 Pick., p. 289. If charterer has a lien, he may insure freightage by that name to the amount of his lien, or as freightage advanced.-Robbins vs. N. Y. Ins. Co., 1 Hall, N. Y., p. 325; Sanson vs. Ball, 4 Dall., p. 459.
But if charterer is to lose freightage if it be not earned, then he may insure the whole amount; and whether advances on account of freightage are reimbursable, consult Saunders vs. Drew, 3 Barn. & Ad., p. 445; Anonymous, 2 Show., p. 283; Silvale vs. Kendall, 3 Maule & S., p. 37. From the cases cited in this note, it would seem that certain expected freightage is insurable. For further information, see Phillips on Ins., Sub. Secs. 469-484, 1 Arnould Ins., pp. 28-33.
PASSAGE MONEY is in some respects similar to freightage. It differs, however, in this, that it is required to be paid before sailing. Yet there was no liability by the common law thrown upon the master, if the ship be lost, to forward passengers to their place of destination.-See Gibson vs. Bradford, 3 E. & B., p. 516; 24 L. J. (Q. B.), p. 159. The passenger under these circumstances, when he has paid his passage money, has an insurable interest similar to the merchant upon freightage. Carriers, however, have generally been made by statute and the laws of this country insurers, and notwithstanding the ship may be lost, they must forward the surviving passengers to their places of destination. As to owner of ship insuring against all charges, liabilities, etc., for forwarding passengers under such circumstances, see Gibson vs. Bradford, 3 E. & B., p. 516; 24 L. J. (Q. B.), p. 159, above cited; 1 Arnould Ins., pp. 33, 34.
PROFITS AND COMMISSIONS.-In France, Spain, Sardinia, and Denmark insurance on profits is illegal. In Hamburg, Holland, Sweden, Portugal, England, and the United States insurances on expected profits are lawful and usual. Says Lawrence, J., upon this point, in Barclay vs. Cousins, 2 East, p. 544: "As insurance is a contract of indemnity, it cannot be said to be extended beyond what the design of such special 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 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 risks of maritime commerce by insuring it, why may he not protect those advantages he is in danger of losing by their being ex
posed to the same risks? It is surely not an improper encouragement of trade," etc. Profits may be insured equally by valued and by open policies.-Eyre vs. Glover, 3 Camp., p. 276. In England it has been held that the insured cannot recover in case of loss 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 (Hodgson vs. Glover, 6 East, p. 316; 1 Arnould Ins., p. 35); but the law is different in the United States.-See Patapsco Ins. Co. vs. Coulter, 3 Peters Sup. Ct. Rep., p. 222; 1 Phillips Ins., p. 318; Loomis vs. Shaw, 2 Johns. Cas., p. 36; Mumford vs. Hallett, 1 Johns., p. 433; see Fosdick vs. Norwich Mar. Ins. Co., 3 Day, Conn., p. 108; Abbott vs. Sebor, 3 Johns. Cas., p. 39. The policy must indicate that the "profits" are the thing insured. A policy upon a "ship," or "goods," etc., without any indication that something else is intended, cannot be applied to profits.-Lucena vs. Crawford, 5 Bos. & P., pp. 269, 315; Phillips Ins., Sub. Secs. 461, 462. But see case arising from custom of particular localities (Philadelphia), Pritchet vs. Ins. Co. of N. A., 3 Yeates, Penn., p. 461, where it was held to have been the practice to insure "profits " under the denomination of "goods." See, further, Mumford vs. Hallett, 1 Johns., p. 433; Eyre vs. Glover, 16 East, p. 218, above cited. A right to a certain per cent or proportion of a cargo, as commission on profits, or instead of freightage, was held covered under the denomination of "property."-Holbrook vs. Brown, 2 Mass., p. 280; see Phillips Ins., Sub. Sec. 462. Whether such was English common law, see 1 Arnould, p. 36; Waugh vs. Carver, 2 H. Bl., p. 235.
OTHER INSURABLE INTERESTS.-See this subject fully discussed in note to Sec. 2546. See, also, Secs. 2547-2557, inclusive,
SECTION 2659. Insurable interest in a ship. 2660. Interest reduced by bottomry.
2661. Freightage, what.
2662. Expected freightage.
2663. Interest in expected freightage, what.
2664. Insurable interest in profits.
2665. Insurable interest of charterer.
2659. The owner of a ship has in all cases an in- Insurable surable interest in it, even when it has been chartered a ship. by one who covenants to pay him its value in case of loss.
NOTE.-Hobbs vs. Hannam, 3 Camp., p. 93; see
note to Sec. 2655, and also Secs. 2546 to 2557, inclusive,
2660. The insurable interest of the owner of a Interest, ship hypothecated by bottomry is only the excess of bottomry." its value over the amount secured by bottomry.
NOTE.-Read vs. Mutual Safety Ins. Co., 3 Sandf.,
p. 54; Smith vs. Williams, 2 Caines Cas., p. 110; see
2661. Freightage, in the sense of a policy of Freightage, marine insurance, signifies all the benefit derived by the owner, either from the chartering of the ship or its employment for the carriage of his own goods or those of others.
NOTE.-The word "freightage" is used throughout this Code instead of "freight," to signify the hire of a carrier, for the obvious reason that the latter word properly means the thing carried. The word "freightage" is given in Webster's, Worcester's, and Bouvier's Dictionaries in the sense in which it is here used; see note to Sec. 2655.
2662. The owner of a ship has an insurable inter- Expected est in expected freightage which he would have certainly earned but for the intervention of a peril insured against.
NOTE.-23 Pick., p. 409; 1 Metc., p. 141; 3 B. & P., p. 95; see notes to Secs. 2546 and 2655.
Interest in expected what.
2663. The interest mentioned in the last section exists, in the case of a charter party, when the ship freightage, has broken ground on the chartered voyage, and if a price is to be paid for the carriage of goods when they are actually on board, or there is some contract for putting them on board, and both ship and goods are ready for the specified voyage.
NOTE." When the ship has broken ground on the