
    [Philadelphia,
    Dec. 23, 1822.]
    WELLS against the Philadelphia Insurance Company.
    On the 23d of July, 1819, A., who was going out as supercargo of the ship America, on a voyage from JVerw York to the Isle of France, and Calcutta, and back, by * a writing, reciting that he was indebted to B. in 2500 dollars, engaged to ship and consign to B. goods to that amount, arising from his outward commissions, and in case of death, or any accident happening to him, assigned his commissions on the above voyage, and the proceedsthereofi to B., and by another writing, of the' same date, authorised B. to make insurance for 2500 dollars on his commissions out, and the proceeds thereof out and home. On the 10th July, A. caused insurance to be made in JVew York, for 4000 dollars, for himself on commissions out and home, and delivered the policy to C. On the 15th August, B. had insurance made by the defendants, in Philadelphia, for 2500 dollars, on commissions of A., valued at the sum insured out, and on the proceeds of said commissions, as ' interest might appear, homeward, with the usual clause as to a prior insurance. On the voyage home, the ship was wrecked, and A. drowned ; but B. received an invoice and bill of lading of goods consigned to him on account of A. by the ship, amounting to 1500 dollars, some of the goods were saved, and claimed and received by the JVem York underwriters, who paid part of their policy on a com- ■ promise with C. Held,
    
    , 1. That this was not a case of double insurance, that at Neio York, and that at Philadelphia being on account, and for the benefit of different persons.
    2. The plaintiff had an insurable interest. •
    3. He was not bound,to disclose to the defendant the particular nature of his interest. ■ "
    ' This was an action’ on a policy of insurance underwritten by the defendants, tried before DuncAN, J. at Nisi Prius, where a verdict was found for the plaintiff, for 1624 dollars, 36 cents, and costs, subject to the opinion of the court; judgment for the plaintiff, or judgment of nonsuit to be entered, according to the opinion of the court.
    The policy was dated 15th August, 1818, for 2500 dollars, "on commissions of William A. Field, supercargo of the ship America, valued at the sum insured out, and on the proceeds of said commissions, as interest may appear, homeward.” The voyage was from New York to the Isle of France, with liberty of the Isle of Bourbon, two ports in Java, .and Calcutta, and back to a port in the United States. The policy, as usual recited, that “ Richard H. Wells, (the plaintiff,) as well in his own name, as for and in the • name or names of all and every other person • or persons to whom the property insured did, might, or should appertain, in part or in whole, did make insurance, &c.” William A. Field and Ems-lie Garrigues, were jointsupercargoesof the America, and Field’s share of the commissions for the voyage round, with premium to cover, amounted to about 4000 dollars. Prior to the date of the policy, on the 3d July, 1818, Field, by a writing under his hand and seal, reciting that he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 2500 dollars, engaged to ship goods to that amount, arising out of his outward commissions on this voyage, and to consign the said shipment to the plaintiff, for the purpose of liquidating the said debt. Then followed this clause: “and in case of my death, or any accident happening to me, I do hereby assign, transfer, and set over to the said Richard Ii. Wells, my commissions on the above voyage, and the proceeds thereof, for the purpose of liquidating his debt.” And by another writing of the same date, Field authoris-ed the plaintiff to effe.ctinsurance on his ownaccount for2500 dollars on his commissions, and the proceeds thereof, out and home, and to recover and receive the same for his own use in case of loss. On the 10th July, 1818, Field had insurance made at New York, for himself, by the Firemen Insurance Company, in the name of N. G. Minium & Co. for the sum of4000 dollars “on commissions.” The policy was open both out and home. It did not appear that this insurance was known to the plaintiff. The policy was left by Field in the hands of Archer,'prior to his embarking in the ship America, but was not assigned to Archer or any other person. The ship was wrecked near Sandy Hook, on her homeward voyage, bound to Philadelphia, in the.month of December, 1819, and Field who was on board, was drowned. The plaintiff received, under a blank cover, unaccompanied with any letter of advice, an invoice and bill of lading of goods shipped June 20th, 1819, by Gárrigues and Field, on account and risk of Field, and consigned/to the plaintiff by the ship America at Calcutta bound to Philadelphia ; amount about 1500 dollars. Some of the goods were saved from the wréck and sold; the proceeds thereof, (deducting the salvage,) were paid to' the New York Firemen Insurance Company, who claimed the same as underwriters, on the first policy. It-was understood that this company paid part of the sum insured by them on. a compromise without suit. The plaintiff’s claim was for a total loss on the goods consigned to* him. In this policy there was the clause usual here, that if the said insured shall have made any other insurance upon the premises aforesaid,-prior in date to this policy, then the insurers shall be answerable only for so much as the amount of such , prior insurance may be deficient towards fully covering the premises hereby insured, such amount being understood to be the whole sum underwritten without any deduction for the insolvency of all or any of the underwriters i and that this policy so far as the same has been previously insured, shall be considered null and void to all intents and purposes, and the said Philadelphia Insurance Company shall return the premium upon so much of the sum by them insured as they shall be by such prior insurance exonerated from: and in case of any insurance upon the said premises subsequent in date to this policy the said Phildelphia Insurance Company shall nevertheless be answerable for the full extent of the sum by them subscribed hereunto, without right to claim contribution from such subsequent insurers, and shall accordingly be entitled to retain the premium by them received in the same manner as if no such subsequent insurance had been made.”
    
      Binney, for the defendants,
    contended, that it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to show that the goods were purchased with the proceeds .of the commissions of William A. Field, and there was no evidence of that. He then insisted on two points. 1. That here was a double insurance, and the latter one was therefore void. 2. That if that were not the case, the plaintiff could not recover, by virtue of any special contract he may have made under his agreement with Field on the 3d July, 1818, on this policy.
    1. Theinsurance in New York was a prior insurance, of the same interest and the same risk. The subject insured there was TV. A. . Field’s commissions as supercago; and this covers goods, the proceeds of the commissions out, shipped home, though not mentioned as goods. It is the usage of this trade for the'supercargoes to receive their commissions at the termination of the outward voyage, and there to invest them in goods to be shipped home. In Hol-brook v. Brown, 2 Mass Rep. 280, a policy was effected on property in the brig Lavinia; the interest proved was a right to commissions on arrival. It was held to be covered by this policy. The New York insurance company have paid the -loss in this case, which shows their idea of the meaning of their policy. The compromise was made from some difficulty which existed in proving Field’s interest. It appears to have been intended to insure the general property of Field at the Philadelphia office, and not any specialinterest. I grant, that if several persons have several interests in the same property, they may make several insurances: but where the same interest is insured by two persons, it is a double insurance. The agreement of the 3d July, 1818, shows, that the commissions of Field were to be insured, and not Wells’ interest in those commissions. The defendants, if they are held liable, will suffer by the course which things have taken. The New York company having made the first insurance, are entitled to the salvage on the goods which were saved. The defendants, were, therefore, deceived, inasmuch as they supposed, that by the insurance they effected, they would be entitled to the benefit of salvage. They contemplated insuring only the general property of Field.
    
    
      2. He that intends to cover any thing different from the general interest, must specify it. The plaintiff, if he intended to cover a special or qualified interest under this insurance, was bound to apprise the underwriters of it, and cannot now introduce it under general words, which are ordinarily applied to a general interest. Of this there are various instances. An insurance on a ship does not cover# bottomry interest: nor an insurance on goods a respon-dentia interest. Cheviot v. Barker, 2 Johns. 346. Glover v. Black, 3 Burr. 1394. Bottomry interest must be insured eo no-mine. Kenny v. Clarkson, 1 Johns. 385. Robertson v. United . Insurance Company, 2 Johns. Cas. 250. In Russel v. Union Insurance Company, 1 Condy’s Marsh. 105, 4 Dali. 424, where there was a lien, the court said in their charge, that the plaintiffs should have disclosed to the defendants the nature of the interest meant to be insured, to prevent a fraud upon the underwriters, though it need not be inserted in the policy In Donath v. Insurance Company of North America, Candy’s Marsh. 311. note, 4 I)all. 463, it is held, that if a factor wishes to insure, he should describe his interest: for when ho insured in the name of his principal, and the gpods having been captured, were restored to the principal, the factor was not allowed to abandon and recover of the insurers the amount of his lien. ,
    
      C. J. Ingersoll, for the plaintiff.
    1. This is by no means the case of a double insurance. A double insurance is where there are two insurances on the same risk and the same interest. But these insurances were not on the same interest, The New York insurance was oh commissions out and home. The Philadelphia insurance was on commissions out, and the proceeds of those commissions home. Goods, the proceeds of commissions, are not the same as commissions, and were not covered by the New York policy. The New York insurers were not entitled to the salvage; it belonged to the Philadelphia insurers, who were on the goods. Besides, if the things be considered the same, the insurances are by different persons, on different interests in it: and the proviso only applies to the same person’s haying made a prior insurance. Two persons may insure different interests in the same thing, each for the whole, Godin v. the London Assurance Company. 1 Burr. 489. 1 Marsh. 150. Well’s interest was distinct from Field’s, and as such separately insurable on his account.
    2. There is no necessity of a specification of the particular kind of interest belonging to the insured. The rule is the other way, except in the case of respondentia, where, by the custom of merchants, it has been insured under that denomination, and therefore the court would not allow that it should be insured under the denomination of goods. Glovery. Black, 1 Marsh. 319. 3 Burr. 1394, and bottomry falls within the exception, 1 Johns. 385. But in Glover v. Black, Lord Mansfield intimates, that under an insurance on goods at large, a man may bo permitted to give in evidence a mortgage, or other special lien, Its. Insurance “on property on board,” covers commissions. Holbrook v. Brown, 2 Mass. Rep. 280. 3 Mass. Rep. 133. In Russel v. Union Insurance Company a lien on a cargo was covered by an insurance on goods, 4 Ball. 421. Insurance “ on freight advanced” was held to embrace an interest in the tonnage of a ship for a voyage. Sansom v. Ball, 4'Ball. 459. 1 Marsh. 117, a, note. Le Gras v. Hughes, 1 Marsh. 108. Crawford v. Hunter, lb. 110. Hill v. Secretan, lb. 114, es-' tablish the same principle, that the insured is not tied down to a specification of his interest. In the later case of Carruthers v. Sheddon, 6 Taunt. 14, 1 Serg. & Lowb. 293, it was held, that if. one of several partners insure goods, he may recover beyond his share of the goods, to the amount of Ml advances made by him for the benefit of the other partners, for which he had a lien on the cargo. Besides, this policy does specify the thing insured: the insurance is for Wells on the commissions of Field. Here was no concealment, but the defendants were told that Well’s had an interest in Field’s commissions. It is objected, that it was not proved that these goods were purchased with the proceeds of Field’s commissions. But the answer is, that the bill'of lading and invoice were sent under a blank cover to the plaintiff: that Field had agreed to consign the goods to him. The goods, it is true, are said in the bill of lading to be shipped by Field and Garrigues, but then it is on account and risk of Field.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

TilgiimaN, C. J.

TheplaintifPs claim is for atotallossonthe goods consigned to him, and this claim is resisted by the defendants on two grounds — 1st. That there was a double insurance. 2d. That if the plaintiff sets up a special, insurable interest, in himself, he ought to have made it known to the underwriters when he gave the order for insurance.

1. The first thing that strikes us in this transaction is, that itis perfectly fair on the part of the plaintiff. He paid the premium which was asked, on .an insurance for 2500 dollars, and he certainly had reason to think that he had an interest to that amount. There was no evidence of his having had any knowledge of the insurance effected by Field in New York on his own account, and if so, and the insurance made at the office of the defendants was for himself, there is nothing in the case hke a double insurance. A double insurance, is where the same person has insurance made on the full value of his interest, in different policies. Whether made in his own name, or the name of others, is immaterial, so that he is to have the benefit of both policies¿ Such would have been the case, if after insurance made in New York'on account of Field, another insurance on the same object had b.een made here, also on his account, in the name of the plaintiff. But the fact was otherwise. The insurance made by the defendants in the name of the plaintiff, was intended by the plaintiff to be for his own benefit. Whether he had an interest which warranted an insurance for himself, is a question to be considered hereafter. For the present, it is to be supposed that he had, and then, the insurance made at New York, and that made here, being on account, and for the benefit of different persons, there was not a double insurance..

2. But had the plaintiff an insurable interest? There is no diffi-ciilty in answering that question. He certainly had At the time of effecting the insurance, he had the written engagement of Field, to consign to him, goods to the amount of the sum insured, which were to.be purchased by Field, in ludia’, with the money to be received there, for his commissions. This is the well known course of trade. The consignees received their commissions in cash, at the end of the outward voyage, which they invest in goods to be brought home. This is what was meant by the proceeds of said commissions. The plaintiff had not only the covenant of Field to consign the goods to him, but in case of his death, an assignment of all his commissions on the whole voyage, and the proceeds thereof. And it seems, Field was anxious to comply with his engagement. For although he embarked on the homeward voyage, yet he took care to consign the goods to the plaintiff. The policy underwritten by'the defendants was valued on the commissions, out, and open on the proceeds thereof home. It lay upon the plaintiff to prove the amount of his interest on the homeward voyage, and he did so. He had an interest in the goods consigned to him, to their full amount, for they fell short of his debt. But it is objected, (and that is the only point that has had any weight with me,) that he ought to have disclosed to the defendants the particular nature of his interest. This case has been likened to an insurance on a bottomry, or respondentia interest, which cannot be covered by an insurance on goods. The law is so, without doubt, but the cases are not parallel. These are contracts, which, in case of loss, exclude the insurer from all possibility of benefit of salvage, and therefore he ought not to be drawn into them blindfold. But the interest of the plaintiff was in the goods. The least that can be said, is, that he had a lien on them to their full amount. In the case of Carruthers v. Sheddon, (6 Taunt. 14.) it was decided, that where one of several partners, made insurance on. goods, he might recover beyond his share of the goods, to the amount of all advances made by him for the benefit of the other partners, and for which he had a lien on the cargo. The present policy was in the name of the plaintiff, and distinctly pointed out the object of insurance, viz. Field’s commissions out, and the proceeds of them home. The defendants must have known that it was very possible for the plaintiff to have an interest in these commissions and their proceeds, and the policy was so drawn that there could be no recovery without proof of interest. The New York company compromised on their poli--ey, so that nothing is to‘be inferred from the payment made by them. I will only remark, that the holder of that ^policy might have found some difficulty in recovering at law, as it would have been incumbent on him to prove the interest of Field, which might not have been so easy a task, had the underwriters been fully apprized of all that had passed between Field and the plaintiff. On’ the whole, I am of opinion, that the plaintiff is entitled to .recover!  