J. Under the general issue the defend-39. ant cannot give evidence that the parties interested are become alien enemies. Harman and others v. Kingston, 3 Campb. 153. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.

And the court of K. B. discharged a rule for a new trial. Ibid.

8. Goods purchased in an enemy's country, by a subject residing here, may be insured. Bell v. Potts, 2 Esp. 2. And had the fact been pleaded, it 612. Buller, J. 1798.

And see Fayle v. Bourdillon, 3 Taunt. | Schroder v. Vaux, 3 Campb. 84, n. 546. Ante, BILLS, pl. 69. The Ann, Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.

Smith, Dodson, 223.

And the court of K. B. refused a rule

9. A voyage to Copenhagen com- for a new trial. Ibid. and 15 East, 53. menced after the period at which that See Siffken v. Allnutt, 1 M. & S. 39. place, according to the capitulation pub- 17. A prospective licence granted after lished in the Gazette, was to be restored a voyage from an enemy's country has to the enemy, but before any certain commenced is inoperative. Henry (or intelligence had arrived of the actual Henty) v. Staniforth, 4 Campb. 470. 1 evacuation, is legal, where it appears Stark. 254. Ellenborough, C. J. 1815. that the object of the adventure was not 18. But if the parties contemplated a trading with the enemy. Atkinson v. the obtaining of a regular licence, the Abbott, 1 Campb. 535. Ellenborough, premium may be recovered back. Ibid. And the court discharged a rule for a

C. J. 1808.

And the court discharged a rule for new trial. Ibid. a new trial. Ibid. and 11 East, 135.

19. Where an enemy's colony is re10. An insurance on goods to be de-cognized incidentally by a British act of livered in a neutral port on account of a state, as no longer under the dominion of neutral resident in another neutral port the enemy, a subject may trade to that in the occupation of the enemy, is valid. colony without a licence. Blackburn Bromley v. Hesseltine, 1 Campb. 75. and another v. Thompson, 3 Campb. Ellenborough, C. J. 1807. 61. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.

11. Or if he be resident in the enemy's country. Ibid.

And see Morgan v. Oswald, 3 Taunt. 554.

And the court discharged a rule for a new trial. Ibid. and 15 East, 86. And see Johnson v. Greaves, 2 Taunt. 344, 55.

12. Semble, that it would be other- 20. A licence to sail to an enemy's wise where the goods are to be delivered country, notwithstanding any thing conat the port occupied by the enemy. Ibid. tained in the order of council, in April, 13. A voyage to a country in which 1809, was held not to legalize an insurBritish commerce is interdicted, and ance on the vessel, being the property with which there is no diplomatic in-of an alien enemy. Gregg and another tercourse, is legal, if no positive acts v. Scott, Holt, 129. Gibbs, C. J. or declarations of hostility have taken 1815.

place. Muller v. Thompson, 2 Campb. 21. A licence to "British or neutral 610. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811. merchants" to import goods in a vessel 14. A policy allowing the vessel to bearing any flag except the French, autrade to any ports in a particular dis- thorizes the employing a vessel belongtrict, within which there are some hos-ing to any other hostile nation. Hagedorn tile ports, is good, unless it appear that v. Reid, 3 Campb. 377. Ellenborough, it was in contemplation to proceed to a C. J. 1813. hostile port. Ibid.

Recognized in Gall v. Dunlop, 7 Taunt. 204. 2 Marsh. 453. See ante, EVIDENCE, K.

15. A voyage begun before the day on which the licence expires, continues to be protected, although the vessel be prevented by stress of weather, from completing the voyage within the time. Groning v. Crockett, 3 Campb. 83. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.

22. But if the goods be shipped at a hostile port, it will be presumed that they are the property of the enemy, and positive evidence must be produced to shew that they come within the terms of the licence. Ibid.

Sed vide Robinson v. Touray, 1 M. and S. 217.

23. A licence "to A. and B. on behalf of themselves and other British neutral merchants, permitting the vessel J. G. 16. And where the insurance is at to sail in ballast from London to Holland, and from the port, and the vessel is notwithstanding any thing contained in ready to sail within the time, the under- H. M.'s order in council of 26th April, writers are not discharged by her being 1809," held to be insufficient to legalize detained in port by contrary winds. a policy on the ship in this voyage on

behalf of the owner, an alien enemy. Gregg and another v. Scott, 4 Campb. 339. Gibbs, C. J. 1815.

And see Muller v. Gernon, 3 Taunt. 394; Gray v. Lloyd, 4 Taunt. 136; Wainhouse v. Cowie, ibid. 178.

B. (d) Illegal voyage.

C. INTEREST.

(And see post, E. (d).)

C. (a) Expected profits.

28. An expectation of commissions upon the freight of goods not loaded at the time of the loss, is not an insurable interest. Knox v. Wood, 1 Campb. 543. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808.

24. An insurance upon a vessel licensed to sail without convoy, is not vitiated by a mis-description of the force of the See Flint v. Le Mesurier, Park, vessel in the licence. Edwards v. Foot-Davidson v. Willasey, 1 M. and S. 313. ner, 1 Campb. 530, 2. Ellenborough, 29. But profits upon a cargo actually C. J. 1808. loaded, are capable of being ascertained

25. A voyage to a place within the and may be insured even in an open limits of the South Sea Company's char-policy. Eyre and another v. Glover, ter, is not legalized by a retrospective 3 Campb. 276. Ellenborough, C. J. licence. Hobbs v. Hannam, 3 Campb. 1812. 93. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.

And the court of K. B. refused a rule for a new trial; 16 East, 218.

And see Forbes v. Aspinall, 13 East, 323; Forbes v. Cowie, Park, post, pl. 62, 64. WITNESS, C. (h).

C. (b) Prize.

30. The captors of property taken in a joint expedition by the navy and army against a land fortress, have an insurable interest from the moment of the capture. Stirling, bart. v. Vaughan, 2 Campb. 225. Ellenborough, Č. J. 1809.

And the court of K. B. discharged a rule for a new trial. Ibid. and 11 East, 619.

And see Routh v. Thompson, 13 East, 274, 9, 88. Pothier, Traité du Contrat d' Assurance, chap. 1. sect. 2. num. 38.

31. A condemnation in the admiralty court, is conclusive evidence of property in the captors. Stirling v. Vaughan, 2 Campb. 225, 9. Ellenborough, C. J. 1809.

C. (c) Trust property.

32. An executor has an insurable in

terest in a life annuity granted to the testator. Tidswell v. Ankerstein, Peake, 151. Kenyon, C. J. 1792.

C. (d) Double insurance. 33. Freighter covenants to pay the owner the full value of the ship if lost;

the latter has still an insurable interest. Hobbs v. Hannam, 3 Campb. 93. Ellenborough, C. J. 1811.

Acc. Marsh. Ins. 146. Newby v. Reed, 1 Bla. 416. Abb. 25. Sed vide Pothier, Traité du Contrat d' Assurance, chap.

1. sect. 2. num. 33.

C. (f) Interest, how proved.

40. Interest in ship is sufficiently proved by acts of ownership. Amery . Rogers, 1 Esp. 207. Kenyon, C. J. 1794.

Sed vide ante, EVIDENCE, pl. 108. 41. Until contrary evidence is offered. Thomas and others v. Foyle, 5 Esp. 88. Ellenborough, C. J. 1803.

34. A creditor insuring the life of his debtor, and charging his accounts annually with the premiums, has no further interest in the policy than as an indemnity; and if after the settlement of the accounts, the creditor receive the sum S. P. Robertson v. French, 4 East, 136. insured from the insurers, the amount 42. But the production of the register may be recovered by the executors of is conclusive. Marsh v. Robinson, 4 Esp. the debtor, in an action for money 98. Le Blanc, J. 1802. had and received. Holland, executor of O'Hara, ▾. Smith, executor of Kendrich, 6 Esp. 11. Ellenborough, C. J. 1806. 35. In an action on a valued policy, it is no defence that the assured have received the amount of this valuation from underwriters on another policy, if the subject matter insured be of a value equal to the sum received and that sought to be recovered. Bousfield v. Barnes, 4 Campb. 228. Ellenborough, C. J. 1815.

C. (e) Interest, how described.

36. An averment that A. is interested in the whole sum insured, is supported by evidence of his being jointly interested with B. Page v. Fry, 3 Esp. 185. Eldon, C. J. 1800.

Se Feise v. Aguilar, 3 Taunt. 506. 37. Especially where A. was originally the sole owner. Ibid.

And the court of C. P. discharged a rule for a new trial. Ibid. and 2 Bos. and Pul. 240.

Sed vide Bell v. Ansley, Selw. 920. S. C. 16 East, 141. 3.

38. So it was held that the interest might be averred to be in A. though the policy laid it in A. and B. Marsh v. Robinson, 4 Esp. 98. Le Blanc, J. 1802. 39. The parties interested are described in the policy, as "trustees of A. and Co." This may be considered their stile of dealing for this purpose. Hibbert and others v. Martin, 1 Campb. 538. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808.

S. C. not S. P. Park, 299, n. and see Wright v. Welbie, 1 Chitty, 49.

S. P. Camden v. Anderson, 5 T. R. 709. Sed vide M'Iver v. Humble, 16 East, 169.

43. The interest in goods is proved by the production of the bill of lading, and by the testimony of the captain that he had the packages on board. M'Andrew v. Bell, 1 Esp. 373. Kenyon, C. J. 1795.

44. The custom-house copy of the searcher's report, produced by the officer in whose custody it is lodged, is evidence of the actual shipment of the goods therein specified. Johnson v. Ward, 6 Esp. 47, 8. Chambre, J. 1806.

D. SHIP.

D. (a) Seaworthiness.

45. A vessel which is defective in sails necessary to facilitate her escape from an enemy, and to enable her to proceed with expedition, is not seaworthy. Wedderburn and others v. Bell, 1 Campb. 1. Ellenborough, C. J. 1807.

46. Or if the crew be insufficient. Ibid.

S. P. Hunter v. Potts, Selw. 907, n. Acc. Law v. Hollingsworth, 7 T. R. 160.

47. But where upon a whale and seal voyage, the crew become insufficient for the whale fishery, the underwriters are liable for a loss happening during the prosecution of the seal fishery. Hucks v. Thornton, Holt, 30. Gibbs, C. J. 1815.

48. A policy at and from a foreign port, does not attach, where the vessel on her arrival outwards is so shattered

as to be unable to be in port in rea- And the court of K. B. after a fourth sonable security. Parmeter v. Cousins, trial, ordered the postea to be delivered 2 Campb. 235. Ellenborough, C. J. to the plaintiff; 7 T. R. 210.

1809.

And see Forbes v. Wilson, Park, 299, n.; Hibbert v. Martin, ibid.

D. (b) Neutrality.

(See post, G. (c).)

E. RISK.

And see Dobson v. Bolton, 4 M. & S. 80. 1 Marsh. Ins. 239; Baring v. Henkle, ib.

54. And it is sufficient if the vessel be driven on shore, and remain there two hours. Harman v. Vaux, 3 Campb. 429. Ellenborough, C. J. 1813.

Or be fixed upon a rock from 15 to 20 minutes. Baker v. Towry, 1 Stark.

E. (a) Risks insured against by the 436. Ellenborough, C. J. 1816.

common policy.

55. Semble, that where a vessel is driven on a reef of rocks, whereby she 49. Where damaged goods are sold at is so much damaged that it afterwards credit, the underwriters are only bound becomes necessary to run her ashore, the to pay the difference between the sound assured may recover particular average, value and the price of the goods calcu- as in a case of stranding. Ibid. lated at the course of exchange at the 56. But it is not a stranding where a period of the sale, and cannot be required vessel strikes on a rock, and remains to indemnify the assured against a fur-there a minute and a half, lying on her ther loss, occasioned by the depreciation beam ends. M'Dougle v. Royal Exch. of the foreign currency at the expiration Assurance Company, 4 Campb. 283, of the credit. Thellusson v. Bewick, 1 Stark. 130. Ellenborough, C. J. 1815. And the court refused a rule for a new 1 Esp. 77. Kenyon, C. J. 1793. trial; 4 M. & S. 503.

an

50. Underwriters are not liable for injury sustained by a vessel which has been lawfully seized by the crown, though she may be afterwards restored to her former owner. Pipon v. Cope, 1 Campb. 434. Ellenborough, C. J. 1808.

51. No interest can be recovered on the sum insured. Kingston v. M'Intosh, 1 Campb. 518. Ellenborough, C. J.

1808.

E. (c) Duration of risk.

57. Where a party insures goods to Jamaica, and the vessel after remaining a month at one port in the island, proceeds with the goods to another port,

the insurance continues till her arrival

411.

52. On a policy on freight the assured at the latter. Leigh v. Mather, 1 Esp. can only recover in respect of the Kenyon, C. J. 1795. cargo 58. But where the same person insures actually on board, unless there be an engagement to provide a full cargo. Pa-ship and goods, the underwriters are trick v. Eames, 3 Campb. 441. Ellen-discharged on her arrival at any port in the island. Ibid. borough, C. J. 1813.

64.

And see ante, pl. 28, 29, post, E. (c) Indies, until arrival at the last place of 59. A policy on goods to the East

E. (b) Risks excluded by the common memorandums.

(And see post, F. (e).)

53. Where the vessel is stranded and the goods are damaged, it is immaterial upon the construction of the common memorandum, whether the injury was occasioned by the stranding or not. Burnett v. Kensington, 1 Esp. 416. Kenyon, C. J. 1795,

discharge on the outward voyage, ceases when the ship has delivered the company's outward cargo at a port in the East Indies, and will not protect the goods to a market in an intermediate voyage made by the ship after taking in part of her cargo for Europe. Ibid.

Sed vide S. C. Park, 52.

60. Insurance on a voyage to Martinique and all or any of the islands, does not cover a loss incurred while the vessel is detained at Antigua for the joint purpose of disposing of the residue of