Tbbest

' The contract is one recognized by the general law and usage of nations, and therefore either native or alien may be insured. It was settled in England after much judicial discussion (and some temporary legislation) that the insurance of enemy’s property is illegal; 13 Ves. 64; see 3 Kent 254. The same rule was recognized by continental jurists; <d. 255; Val. Com. ii. 32; and in this country; Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. (N. T.) 438, where the subject was exten.sively discussed, and it is said that “it may be considered the established law of this country;’’ 3 Kent 256. Such contracts, made before the outbreak of war, are annulled by it; Snow, Lect. Int. L. 101. Insurance by British underwriters of a foreign subject’s treasure which is later captured by the foreign government of the insured, though war is afterwards declared between the two governments, is valid even though the seizure is made in contemplation of war and in order to support the war; [1902] a; C. 484, affirming [1901] 2 K. B. 419; [1900] 2 Q. B. 339; so where the treasure belongs to a British subject insured by British underwriters but situated in a foreign hostile country; [1901] 2 K. B. 849. It may also be in favor of A, or whom it may concern, but those general words will only apply to a person with an interest in the subject and who was in the contemplation of the contract; Bauduy v. Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C. 391, Fed. Cas. No. 1,112; Hooper V. Robinson, 98 U. S. 528, 25 L. Ed. 219; Duncan v. Ins. Co., 129 N. T. 237, 29 N. E. 76; If such person has authorized or adopted it; ganders v. Ins. Co., 44 N. H. 238. The intention of the insurer need not have fastened upon the very person, who seeks to, take the benefit; an intention covers a person who takes such relation to the insurer as brings him within the clauses of the policy; Duncan v. Ins. Co., 129 N. Y. 237, 29 N. E. 76. See Haynes v. Rowe, 40 Me. 181. The ihsurance “on advances’’ is distinct from the ship itself; Providence Washington Ins. Co. V. Bowring, 60 Fed. 613, 1 C. C. A. 683, 1 U. S. App. 183. As to who may be insurers in a marine policy there is no special rule. An insurance on a ship named makes the latter a part of the contract and no othef can be substituted, but a cargo may be changed from one ship to another; 3 Kent 257; and the master may be changed; Walden V. Ins. Co., 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 138. An in.surance on the ship includes everything appurtenant to it; Boulay-Paty ill. 879; 1 Term 611, note. An insurance on goods need Marine policies in England and this country usually contain the words “lost or not lost,” and in such case they cover losses already accrued as well as future ones; Commercial Ins. Co. V. Hallock, 27 N. J. L. 645, 72 Am. Dec. 379. It is so without the words in other foreign countries; Roccus, d© A«s. n. 61; 3 Kent 259; and it was said by Story, J., that “it would be so without reference to the words”; Hammond v. Allen, 2 Summ. 397, Fed. Cas. No. 6,000. The most perfect good faith is required in this contract with respect to representations, warranties, and concealment, as to all of which see the several titles. The Insured is required both to pay the premium, and to represent fully and fairly all the circumstances relating to his subjectmatter of the insurance, which may influence the determination of the underwriters in undertaldng the risk or estimating the premium. A concealment of such facts amounts to a fraud, which avoids the contract; 3 Kent 282. Where a policy covers a loss by perils of the sea or other perils, the insured may recover for a loss occasioned by the negligence of the master or crew or other persons employed by him; Copeland v. Ins. Co., 2 Mete. (Mass.) 432; General Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sherwood, 14 How. (U. S.) 351, 14 L. Ed. 452; L. R. 4 C. P. 117; Phmnix Ins. Co. v. Transp. Co., 117 U. S. 323, 6 Sup. Ct. 1176, 29 L. Ed, 873. Perils and Loss. Insurance on goods carried on deck of an inland river steamer, according to custom, and lost, may be recovered; [1904] 1 K. B. 252; but there can be no recovery for loss occurring as a result of pushing through dangerous ice by the master of the vessel; Standard Marine Ins. Co. v. Transp. Co., 133 Fed. 636, 67 0. C. A. 602, 1