Mortgage-Additional Loans by Mortgagor-Policy-Forfeiture. -The plaintiff advanced money to the master of a vessel on the vessel and its freight, and took from the defendant a policy of insurance covering such loan. The plaintiff also took from the master of the vessel an instrument securing the loan, and providing that the owner or master would not take any further advances on the vessel or its earnings. The master violated this provision by obtaining additional advances. The defendant claimed that the additional advances avoided the insurance. The additional advances were obtained without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, and there was no provision in the policy avoiding it for such cause. Held, that a warranty, whose breach produces a loss of the insurance, should appear on the face of the policy. It must be evident in terms, or from necessary construction, neither of which is established in this case.

Cassa Marittima v. Phenix Ins. Co. (N. Y. S. C.), 12 New York Supplement (March 12, 1891), p. 811; 20 Insurance Law Journal, 443.

Application-Warranty-Forfeiture.--An application for insurance at Halifax stated that the vessel was at Buenos Ayres, or near port, to sail February 3d, bound up the river; "would tow up and back." Held, that these words constituted a promissory representation, and were not a mere expression of opinion.

Bailey v. Ocean Marine Ins. Co. (Nova Scotia S. C.), 11 Canadian Law Times (April, 1891), p. 135. Not reported in full.

Mutual Company--Action--Party Plaintiff.--The plaintiffs were the owners of a steamship, and P. R. & Co. insured the steamship in the defendant association, a policy being issued to them, in the form of a deed-poll, in which P. R. & Co. are described as having become members of the association. In an action by plaintiffs for loss of the ship, held, that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and defendant, and that the action could not be maintained in their names, but that such action should be brought by P. R. & Co.

Montgomerie v. United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association, Limited (End. C. A.,-Q. B. Div.), 1 Queen's Bench Division-Law Reports (March 2, 1891), p. 370.

Deviation-Forfeiture.-In case of deviation by delay-as, in case of departure from the usual course of navigation-it is not necessary to show that the peril has been enhanced, in order to avoid a marine policy.

Delay in Commencing or Prosecuting Voyage-Forfeiture.Any unreasonable or unexcused delay, either in commencing or prosecuting a voyage, alters the risk on a marine policy, and absolves the underwriter from liability for subsequent loss.

Spinney v. Ocean Mut. Marine Ins. Co., 17 Can. S. C. 326.

Policy-"Loading Port."-In`a marine policy the words “a loading port on the western coast of South America" must be construed in a commercial sense as understood by shippers, ship-owners, and underwriters, and, so construed, may be found to cover a port for loading on one of the Guano Islands from 25 to 40 miles off the coast.

Providence-Washington Ins. Co. v. Gerow, 17 Can. S. C. 387.

Total Loss-How Determined. The deduction of one-third new for old should be made in determining whether the cost of repairs exceeds one-half the declared value of a ship so as to make the insurers liable as for a total loss, where such deduction would be required by the policy in a case of partial loss, and the policy provides that there shall be no liability for constructive total loss unless cost of repairs "under an adjustment as a partial loss" shall exceed the value of the ship as declared in the policy.

Gerow v. Royal Canadian Assur. Co., 27 N. B. 513.

Total Loss-Evidence.-A steamboat sprung a leak which the crew found impossible to stop. They, therefore, acting according to their best judgment, allowed the steamboat to sink in shallow water and abandoned her. The owner informed the insurance company, whose agent promised to go and look after the boat, and to take charge of her but neglected to do so until she had become a total wreck. Held, that the insurance company was liable as for a total loss.

New Orleans & N. Packet Co. v. Louisville Underwriters (U. S. C.), 45 Federal Reporter (April 21, 1891), p. 370; 20 Insurance Law Journal, 490.

Policy-On Account of "Wuom it May Concern”—Party Plaintiff. The policy in suit was issued to the Samana Steamship Company, payable to "W. B. Duncan, Jr., on account of whom it may concern," etc. It was further provided that "any change of interest in the vessel hereby insured shall not affect the validity of this policy." Held, that a transferee of the policy might maintain action on the policy in his

own name.

Same Same-Notice of Transfer.-The company was not entitled to notice of the transfer of the policy to the plaintiff.

Duncan v. China Mutual Ins. Co. (Superior Ct., N. Y. City), 14 New York Supplement (May 28, 1891), p. 301; 39 New York State Reporter, 348.

General Average-Water Damage.-Damage by water, poured upon the cargo to extinguish the fire, is subject of general average. The Buckeye, 7 Biss., 23, disapproved.

Same Statute.-The statute (Rev. St., 4282), exempting the shipowner from liability for damage to cargo by fire, happening without his neglect or design, does not release from liability to contribute to general

average.

The Roanoke-Union Mutual Marine Ins. Co. v. Owners of the Steamer Roanoke (U. S. D. C.), 46 Federal Reporter (July 7, 1891), p. 297; 23 Chicago Legal News (June 13, 1891), p. 337; 44 Albany Law Journal, 157.

Valued Policy on Hull-Managing Owner-Insurance on Advances-Insurable Interest.-Respondents issued a twelve-months policy for $5,000 on hull and boiler of the steam-ship F., valued at $100,000. Twenty-two other companies issued other policies of a like tenor, making in all $100,000 insurance. The managing owners being under advances for upwards £6,000, owed to them by the ship's owners in the ship's business, took out at Lloyds, for the joint benefit of all owners, three additional policies "on advances" for £5,750, as the probable average for the year. The ship was totally lost, and, all the policies having been paid in full except the respondent's, making upwards of $100,000 paid in all, the latter resisted payment on the ground that the libelants were estopped by the valued policy from recovering more than the agreed value of the ship. It appeared that the entire insurance was not in excess of the value of the ship. Held, (1) that the managing owners in possession had an equitable, if not a maritime, lien on the ship, and an insurable interest in the ship, and in her continued life, in respect to their advances; (2) that this interest was a different subject-matter of insurance from the hull and machinery; (3) that the intent of the policies "on advances" and of the payment of them, was to insure that different interest, and that the amount paid thereon by the underwriters could not be offset by the defendant as a defense.

The Fern Holme-Bowring v. Providence- Washington Ins. Co. (U. S. Dis. Ct.), 46 Federal Reporter (June 23, 1891), p. 119.

Policy-Reinsurance on Excess.-Plaintiff issued to defendant an open policy of reinsurance endorsed "To apply to the excess which said company may have in all their various policies over $50,000, and to apply pro rata to all the reinsurance policies on same excess, but not to exceed $10,000." Held, that defendant, having reinsured with plaintiff the excess of its risk over $50,000, had the right to reinsure the $50,000 with other companies. It was not bound to carry $50,000.

Same-Same-Local Usage.-A local usage can not affect a contract made elsewhere.

Ins. Co. of N. A. v. Hibernia Ins. Co. (U. S. S. C.), 11 Supreme Court Reporter (June 22, 1891), p. 909; 48 Legal Intelligencer (July 3, 1891), p. 279; Book 35 Lawyers' Co-operative United States Reports, 517; 140 United States, 565; 20 Insurance Law Journal, 689.

Policy-Conditions of Contract.-A clause in a cargo policy, providing that freight and advances insured under this policy are subject to the terms and conditions of freight policy attached hereto, does not imply that insurance of advances are not subject to the conditions of the cargo policy.

Assignment of Claim-Warranty.-On payment of a marine policy to defendant's firm to cover advances made to the owners of the vessel, said firm assigned to the company its claim against the owners to the extent of $1,500, the amount of the insurance, which in fact comprised its commissions on charter and expenses of insurance. In an action to recover the sum paid, after failure to recover of the owners, held, that there was an implied warranty that the claims assigned amounted to $1,500, and that defendant could not object to said commission and expenses being included in the recovery against him.

Same-Same-Damage.-In such action the costs of the action against the owners may be recovered, although defendant was not notified of the action; but counsel fees are not recoverable.

Phenix Ins. Co. v. Parsons (N. Y. Superior Ct.), 37 New York State Re porter (June, 1891), p. 874.

MISCELLANEOUS.

Corporate Name-Injunction.-In an action by the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation against the Employers' Liability Insurance Company of the United States to restrain the defendant from using the words "Employers' Liability" in its corporate name, it appeared that there were many corporations carrying on the business in which the plaintiff was engaged, and that all used the words "Employers' Liability" in their corporate names. Held, that such words designated a kind of insurance business and did not express proprietorship, and their use by defendant would not be restrained, though the plaintiff was the first to use them.

Same--Same.-It appeared that the plaintiff was an English corporation doing business in New York, and that the defendant, a New Jersey corporation, had applied for admission to the state. There was no evidence that the defendant adopted its name with the intent to imitate that of plaintiff, or in fraud of its rights. Held, that the use by the defendant of the words "Employers' Liability" in its corporate name would not be enjoined on the ground that confusion would result as to the identity of the two companies, in that it was the custom to refer to insurance companies by abbreviated titles, since the defendant would be permitted to do business only in its corporate name, which is distinguishable from that of plaintiff.

Same--Statute--Foreign Company.-Laws N. Y., 1877, c. 211, providing that no "insurance company hereafter organized under laws of this state shall use a corporate title which shall at the time of such organization be used to designate any other insurance company already existing under the laws of this state," does not apply to foreign insurance companies.

Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation v. Employers' Liability Ins. Co. (N. Y. S. C.), 10 New York Supplement (Sept. 18, 1890), p. 845.

Petition-Foreclosure of Mortgage.-A bill to foreclose a mortgage executed to an insurance company to secure the payment of a bond is not subject to a demurrer for failure to show affirmatively the capacity of the company to loan money and take mortgages.

Same-Same-Insurance Business--Statute.-Rev. Code Ala.,