
    Jacob Foster et al. versus The United States Insurance Company.
    One tenant in common of a vessel has no right, merely in virtue of such relation, to cause insurance to be made on property on board for his co-tenant.
    A master of a vessel has no right, merely as master, to procure insurance for the owners.
    Where a master of a vessel, who was also a part-owner, carried to a foreign port property belonging to the owners of the vessel and disposed of the same, and put on board the proceeds, to be brought home, part of which was joint property and part separate property, and caused insurance to be made “on property on board, for the owners of the vessel,” it was held, that the policy covered his own interest, both joint and separate, but that it did not protect the interest of the other owners, there being no proof of a previous direction to him to procure insurance, or of a ratification of his act.
    Where a policy of insurance is made on property on board of a vessel “ for the owners of the vessel,” extrinsic evidence is admissible to show that the insurance was intended by the assured to cover both joint and separate property of the owners.
    Assumpsit on a policy of insurance, dated August 21, 1827, by which the defendants “ cause Foster and Thompson, for the owners of brig Sampson, to be assured, lost or not lost, one thousand dollars on property on board brig Sampson, at and from Havana to Boston.”
    The declaration contained several counts : — the first averring the interest in the property shipped to have been in Benjamin Gorham, Francis A. Babbitt and Josiah Mason, owners of brig Sampson ; — the second averring that they were the owners of the vessel, and that they were jointly interested in property on board to the amount of $ 456*37, — that Gorham was solely interested in property on board to the amo int of $ 317*55, — and Babbitt solely interested in property o i board to the amount of $ 142*12 : — and the others were t íe usual money counts.
    The defendants pleaded the general issue.
    Upon a case stated it appeared, that Gorham, Babbitt and Mason were the owners of the vessel at the time when the insurance was made, and until her loss. The authority of the plaintiffs to effect the insurance, was by virtue of a letter, dated Havana, July 30, 1827, addressed to them by Gorham, who was the master and one of the owners of the vessel, in these words : — “ The property to ship home in Sampson, say 
      0 1000, you will insure at lowest rate on account of owneis.” The vessel sailed from Havana in August 1827, with property on board belonging to Gorham, Babbitt and Mason jointly, to the amount of $456‘37, and other property belonging to Gorham solely, to the amount of 0 317"55, and other property belonging to Babbitt solely, to the amount of 0 142T2 ; together with other property, of various amounts, belonging to other persons. The vessel, with this property on board, was totally lost by the perils of the seas.
    
      March 24th, 1830.
    The defendants were to be defaulted or the plaintiffs to be nonsuited, or such other order to be made as the Court should think proper.
    
      C. G. Loving for the plaintiffs.
    The intention of the plaintiffs was to effect insurance both on the joint and on the separate property of the owners of the vessel.
    The plaintiffs clearly had authority to insure Gorham’s separate property and his interest in the joint adventure. Gorham was consignee of the joint adventure, and as such he had a right to cause insurance to be made on the interest of the other two owners. Crauford v. Hunter, 8 T. R. 23 ; Lucena v. Craufurd, 2 New Rep. 290. He was also a co-partner in the shipment, and had the property in his possession and under his management, and so was authorized to obtain insurance for his copartners. Babbitt was at Havana with Gorham, and it must be presumed that Gorham was requested by him to cause his separate interest to be insured. The sum insured is large enough to cover both the joint and the separate property in question. The defendants took the premium on 01000, and the burden is on them to show a want of authority. The action is brought to recover for the benefit of all the owners, with their approbation it is to bo presumed, and the adoption of a policy, even after a loss, by the party for whom it was intended, is equivalent to a previous order for insurance. Phillips on Ins. 61 ; Hagedorn v. Oliver son, 2 M. & S. 485 ; Lucena v. Craufurd, 2 New Rep. 291 ; Seamans v. Loving, 1 Mason, 127.
    The phrase “ owners of brig Sampson,” is merely a description of the persons whose interest was to.be insured, and does not imply a joint ownership in the property. The insurance 
      is on a property ” generally; and it may be shown by extrinsic evidence, that the plaintiffs intended that the policy should cover separate or joint property, or both.. 1 Emerig. 58, 59 ; Locke v. North American Ins. Co. 13 Mass. R. 61 ; Lee v. Mass. F. & M. Ins. Co. 6 Mass. R. 216, 217 ; Petty v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. 1 Burr. 349 ; Hodgson v. Maryland Ins. Co. 5 Cranch, 100 ; Davis v. Boardman, 12 Mass. R. 80 ; Carruthers v. Sheddon, 6 Taunt. 14 ; Oliver v. Green, 3 Mass. R. 133 ; Wiggin v. Mercantile Ins. Co. 7 Pick. 271 ; Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co. 1 Paine’s C. C. Rep. 616 ; Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co. 1 Wendell, 561 ; Marsh v. Robinson, 4 Esp. R. 98.
    
      Fletcher, contra.
    
    The direction to insure “ property on account of owners of the brig,” implies that the property was joint. There is no ambiguity in the policy, and the plaintiffs cannot go out of the instrument itself, to show what was the intention of Gorham. Where there is no general clause “ for whom it may concern,” or the like, the policy avails for those only who are named. The joint owner who effects the policy is alone insured ; he cannot give in evidence the interest of the other joint owners, to make up the sum assured by the policy. And it should seem that the converse of this proposition must be true, namely, that where a joint interest, in the terms of the policy, is assured, no individual interest can be given in evidence. Dumas v. Jones, 4 Mass. R. 647 ; Pearson v. Lord, 6 Mass. R. 81; Kemble v. Rhinelander, 3 Johns. Cas. 130 ; Graves v. Boston M. Ins. Co. 2 Cranch, 419 ; Phillips on Ins. 61.
    The plaintiffs had no authority to procure insurance for the owners of the brig collectively or severally. Gorham was not authorized as master, to order insurance on the goods ; French v. Backhouse, 5 Burr. 2727 ; nor as part-owner of the goods, could he effect a joint insurance ; Abbott on Shipping, 77 ; Bell v. Humphries, 2 Stark. R. 345 ; Campbell v. Stein, 6 Dow, 134. He was not consignee of the homeward cargo, ani. being consignee of the outward cargo is immaterial. Neiiher was he a copartner.
    There is no proof of a ratification of the insurance on the part of Babbitt and Mason, and the fact is not to be assumed without evidence.
    
      March 31st, 1831.
   Putnam J.

delivered the opinion of the Court. We are satisfied that one tenant in common of a vessel has no right to cause insurance to be made on property on board, for his co-tenants, who are the owners of the other parts of the vessel ; Bell v. Humphries, 2 Stark. R. 345 ; and it is settled that the master of the vessel, merely in virtue of his authority as such master, has no power to procure insurance for the owners. French v. Backhouse, 5 Burr. 2727.

The plaintiffs, deriving their authority to make the insurance for the owners of the brig merely from the letter of Capt. Gorham, and no directions having been given by them to him for that purpose, and no adoption or ratification of the act of the master having been proved, cannot recover for the joint account of the owners.

But we think, that as Capt. Gorham had an interest himself in the property, viz. in one third of $456-37, which was owned jointly, and in $317-55, which he owned in severalty, the plaintiffs may recover for that interest. So far as he was concerned, the plaintiffs had authority to effect the insurance, and the policy must avail to that extent. There is no reason to doubt but that he intended to get insurance for the other owners, but the intent has failed by reason of the objections made by the defendants, in respect of the want of authority to insure for their account.

The second count contains averments which we think are sufficient to enable the plaintiffs to recover for Capt. Gorham. It states that Gorham, Babbit and Mason were the owners of the brig, and that they were jointly interested in the property on board. And it cannot be doubted but that Gorham had a right to insure his interest in the joint property. This count further states that Gorham was solely interested in other property on board to the amount above stated. And the proof has been given of these averments.

it has been contended for the defendants, that this is a matter of construction, and that it is not competent to go out of the contract to ascertain the intent ; that the phrase “ owners of the brig ” means owners collectively and not severally, and that no recovery can be had but for the joint account.

A more reasonable construction has been held in New York, which we adopt. In Catlett v. Pacific Ins. Co. 1 Wendell, 561, the policy was effected by Le Roy, Bayard & Co. on account of the owners, on goods on board the brig Sphinx $ and it was held, that where the assured were not named in the policy, it was competent to prove who they were, by extrinsic evidence ; that “ the plaintiffs were properly admitted to show that the insurance was effected by them to cover their own individual interest in the adventure.”

The same case is reported in 1 Paine’s C. C. Rep. 615, and Thompson J. remarked, that “it is clear, if the assured aver an entire interest in themselves in the subject insured, such averment cannot be supported by evidence of a joint interest with others. Nor can the averment of a joint interest with others be supported by proof of a sole interest.” But in the case before us (as has been observed) the averments in the second count correspond precisely with the fact. Gorham was interested in one third of the joint property, and he had some on his sole account. We consider the policy to be effected for whomsoever it might concern, being owners of the Sampson, and that those were words of descript’on of the persons who were to be assured, comprehending one or more who were owners. And we think it is within the true meaning of the policy to ascertain the interest, as well as the persons who were the owners, by extrinsic evidence.

There is a count for money had and received, under which the premium for the other owners who were not insured (for the reasons before stated) will be recovered back. The defendants are to be defaulted and judgment is to be entered according to this opinion. 
      
       See Roberts v. Ogilby, 9 Price, 269 ; Hooper v. Lusby, 4 Campb. 66; Robinson. v. Gleadow, 2 Scott, 250; S. C.2 Bingh. N. R. 156; Gen. Int. Ins. Co. v. Ruggles, 12 Wheat. 408; Finney v. Warren Ins. Co. 1 Metc. 16.
     
      
       See Turner v. Burrows, 5 Wend. 541; S. C. 8 Wend. 144; Burrows v. Turner, 24 Wend. 276; Pacific Ins. Co. v. Catlett, 4 Wend. 75, Irving v. Richardson, 2 Barn. & Adol. 193.
     