Page images

f authority, twisted into a worker taken the gues

autand by en before would ve

as touching his Godhead, but inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood. This private opinion of Mr. Reeves' appears also in another place; and, though no one ought to object to his right of declaring his private opinion in a private manner, yet, as one of the parties authorised to print the Bible, he should have taken the greatest care that nothing was foisted into a work that assumes the appearance. of authority, which has not been recognised by that author rity, and by the rulers of the church. The title-page declares that the work before us is appointed to be read in churches ; but the archdeacon would very much neglect his duty, who should permit it to be introduced into the reading-desk, or, finding it on any such reading-desk within his jurisdiction, should not forthwith order it to be removed out of the church. The title-page ought to have pointed out the distinction between the present and the authorised Testament, and to have informed the purchaser, that the divisions into sections, the chronology, the chapters, the titles, the mar, ginal teadings, and the notes, have not the authority of the so established church, but are the voluntary contributions of John Reeves, esq.

Art. X.-A Treatise on the Law of Insurance. By Samuel

Marshall. (Continued from p. 92 of our preceding Vo. lume.)

OBSTACLES unexpected and unavoidable have long diverted our attention from this useful work, which a sense of duty to our commercial readers impels us to resume.

In a former article we examined the plan and general ar.' rangement of the first book, on Marine Insurances. We hasten to discharge our promise, and to terminate our remarks on this division of the work by selecting passages, as specimens, from an essential topic of insurance.

T'he adjustment of losses has frequently perplexed, not law. yers alone, but merchants themselves. Serjeant Marshall seems less embarrassed than preceding writers, We shall. endeavour to delineate, by extracts, a sketch of this important subject.

• A loss, in insurance, is the injury or damage sustained by the insured in consequence of the happening of one or more of the accidents or misfortunes against which the insurer, in consideration of the preinium, has undertaken to indemnify the insured.' P. 414. i

[ocr errors]

Every loss is either total or partial, The term total loss is under stood in two different senses ; natural and legal. In its natural sense, it signifies the absolute destruction of the thing insured. In its legal

sense, it means not only the total destruction, but likewise such damage, to the thing insured, though it may specifically remain, as. renders it of little or no value to the owner. So a loss is said to be total, if, in consequence of the misfortune that has happened, the voyage be lost, or not worth pursuing, and the projected adventure frustrated; or if the value of what is saved be less than the freight, &c.

' A partial loss is any loss or damage short of, or not amounting to, a total loss; for if it be not the latter, it must be the former.' P. 41.4.

• Partial losses are sometimes denominated average losses, because they are often of the nature of those losses which are the subject of average contributions; and they are distinguished into general and particular averages.' P. 415.

These definitions are accompanied by an explanation of the nature and kinds of losses, whether by perils of the sea, running foul of other vessels, fire, capture, arrest and detention of princes, barratry, average contributions or expenses of salvage-and are followed by an elaborate discussion of the doctrine of abandonment.

"The adjustment of a loss is the settling and ascertaining the amount of the indemnity which the insured, after all allowances and deductions are made, is en:itled to receive under the policy, and the fixing the proportion of this, which each underwriter is liable to pay.' P. 529.

« The insurer ought never to pay less, nor the insured receive more, than that which a fair indemnity demands.' P.529.

The mode of ascertaining and appreciating the quantity of damage is thus elucidated.

- When the loss is admitted to be total, and the policy is a valued one, the insured is entitled to receive the whole suni insured, subject to such deductions as may have been agreed by the policy to be made in case of loss. For the insured, by allowing the value to be inserted in the policy, agrees that it shall be taken as there stated ; and it is the same as if he had admitted it at the trial of the cause.

• It is only in the case of a total loss that there is any difference between an open and a valued policy. Upon the latter, the value is admitted, and the insured has only to prove, if the insurance was on goods, that the goods valued were on board. Upon an open policy, it is not only necessary to prove that the goods were on board, but al. so the value of them, which value, not exceeding the sum insured, is the sum the insurers are bound to pay.

• But in the case of a partial loss, the like inquiry is to be made into the amount of the loss, whether the policy be of the one sort or of the other. The indemnity secured by either sort of policy is, that if the thing insured do not come safe to the port of destination, but is lessened in value by damage received in the voyage, the less shall be borne by the insurer,' p. 530.

i Upon the subject of the valuation of the goods insured there has always been a great diversity of opinion, not only among speculative writers, but also among merchants themselves. Some contending for the prime cost, others for the current price at the time of the loss; some insisting on the price at the time and place where the goods are shipped, others on the price at the port of discharge.' P. 533. *

In England, if the policy be an open one, it is an invariable rule to estinate a total loss, not by any supposed price which the goods might have been deemed worth at the time of the loss, or for which they might have been sold, had they reached the market for which they were destined; but according to the prime cost ; that is, the in. voice price, and all duties and expertes till they are put on board, to

gether with the premium of insurance. This is the only true, at least - the only legal, mode of estimating a loss, whether total or partial, on

goods"; and therefore, whether the goods would have arrived at a good or a bad market is always immaterial. Neither is the difference of exchange to be at all regarded in the adjustment; for the underwriter does not insure against any loss arising from such causes.' P. 534.

• A ship is valued at the sum she is worth, at the time she sails on the voyage insured, including the expences of repairs, the value of her furniture, provisions and stores, the money advanced to the sailors, and, in general, every expence of the outfit, to which is added the premium of insurance.

A partial loss upon either ship or goods, is that proportion of the prime cost, which is equal to the diminution in value occasioned by the damage.' P. 535.

The opinion of the celebrated lord Mansfield, in the case of · Lewis v. Rucker,' appears, in the language of lawyers, to be fully abstracted by the serjeant.

"The nature of the contract is that the goods shall come safe to the port of delivery; or if not, that the insurer will indemnify the insured to the amount of the prime cost. If they arrive, but lessened in value by damage received at sea, the nature of an indemnity speaks demonstrably, that it must be, by putting the insured in the same situation, (relation being had to the prime cost, or value in the policy), which he would have been in, if the goods had arrived free from damage ; that is, by paying such proportion, or aliquot part, of the prime cost, or value in the policy, as corresponds with the proportion, or aliquot part, of the diminution in value occasioned by the damage. The duty accrues upon the ship's arrival and landing her cargo at the port of delivery; and the insured has then a right to demand satisfaction. The adjustment can never depend upon future events or speculations : How long is he to wait; a week, a month, or a year ? - In this case, the price rose ; but, if peace had been made, the price would have fallen : But the defendant did not insure that there should be no peace.' P.539.

. • No private scheme or project of trade of the insured can affect the insurer.' P.540. is We are led by this case of Lewis v. Rucker' to extend our inquiry into partial losses.

? The insurance was on goods which were valued in the policy, but whose real value depended, at the time the insurance was effected, on a fluctuating market. The goods which were damaged in the voyage, came to a fallen market, where the price was less than the value in the policy. The insured insisted on being paid the difference between the

price for which the goods were sold in the port of delivery, and the ya{"lue in the policy. But it was determined that he was only entitled to

the proportion of the value in the policy which their diminution in va-lue bore to the price of sound goods, of the same sort, in the port of - delivery; thus using the relative prices of the sound and damaged

goods at the port of delivery as the means of ascertaining the propor. tion of the prime cost which the insurer was bound to pay.' P. 5:10. . In the case of “ Le Cras v. Hughes,'

which came before the court af King's Bench many years after, wards, there was a partial loss upon a valued policy, but the value in the policy exceeded the interest of the insured. There, lord Mansfield and the other judges of the court declared, that it was the constant usage in such cases, to adjust á partial loss in the same manner as if the policy were an open one, and that the computation must therefore 'be by the roal interest on board, and not by the value in the po

licy. 4 . That was an insurance on a ship and goods on board," At and from O.noa to London ; valued at the 'sum insured." There was no value mentioned in the body of the policy, but only the sums wrote against the different names on the back. There were other policies on the same ship and goods, amounting in the whole to 99,5001, which exceeded the amount of the interest of the insured. The ship and a great part of the cargo were lost, about one tenth only of the goods þeing saved. One questiun at the trial of this cause was, how the loss, which was considered as a partial one, should be adjusted. The bro. ker swore that, on such policies as this, where a total loss happened, the whole sum was paid ; But where it was only a partial loss, they considered it as an open policy, and paid a proportion, not of the sum insured, but of the value of the goods.---The court of King's Bench, when this came before them, thought it, at first, like the case of Lewis va Rucier. But the interest of the insured, in the ship, and goods, being less in value than the sum insured, the court held, ihat this case differed from that of Lewis v. Rucker, and that the constant usage in such cases was, upon a total loss, to pay the whole ;, but, upon a partial loss, to consider it as an open policy. The court were 'therefore of opinion that the computation in this case must be by the real interest of the insured on board, and not by the value in the policy.' p. 540),

: An endeavour to render completely intelligible the manner

of adjusting a partial loss, according to our ideas of the practice, 'will not perhaps be unacceptable.' !',

Å. ships for Malaga, on sale, for his own account, goods, costing or fairly estimated at 1000l.

The goods arrive damaged, and sell for 8001.".... : 1. If, on arriving sound, they would have produced 1000l. the assured demands from the insurer 2001. . 2. The goods arrive damaged, and sell, as already supposed, for 8001.-Had they been sound, they ivould have sold for 1 2001.-The assured now claims from the insurer, neither 2001. nor 4001., but the following proportion:· If 12001. lose 4001., what will 10001., the sum insured, lose? .

The answer is 3331.; and this sum the assured demands.

3. The goods arrive damaged: if sound, they would have produced 8001.; being damaged, they sell only for 6001.

If 8001. lose 2001., what will 1000l. lose?

The answer is 2501.-a sum which forms the claim of the assured on the insurer. · From book I, on “Marine Insurance,' our quotations have been already abundant. We lament that the contracted space in which we move forbids an accumulation of extracts. The systematic distribution of this work might have supplied many titles (among others, the important and comprehensive chapter on · Warranties) of peculiar utility, at a period of war.

Three books remain unexamined. We must content ourselves with a cursory view of their principal objects.

The nature and form of the contract of ċ Bottomry and Respondentia' is clearly defined.

• Bottomry is a contract in nature of a mortgage of a ship, on which the owner borrows money to enable him to fit out the ship, or to purchase a cargo for a voyage proposed; and he pledges the keel or bottom of the ship, pars pro toto, as a security for the repayment : And it is sti. pulated that if the ship should be lost, in the course of the voyage, by any of the perils enumerated in the contract, the lender also shall lose his money; but if the ship should arrive in safety, then he shall receive back his principal, and also the interest agreed upon, which is generally called the marine interest, however this may exceed the legal rate of interest. Not only the ship and tackle, if they arrive safe, but also the person of the borrower, is liable for the money lent and the marine interest.

· When the loan is not on the ship, but on goods laden on board, which, from their nature, must be sold or exchanged in the course of the voyage, the borrower's personal responsibility is then the principal security for the performance of the contract, which is therefore called

« PreviousContinue »