
    Samuel G. Perkins versus the New England Marine Insurance Company.
    An insurance was effected on a Sidmouth license, not filled up, and valued at S 9000, on board a hired vessel, against its loss from capture by British or Americans or other powers, and against the ordinary perils of the seas; it being agreed, that, if the assured had made any prior insurance, the underwriters on this policy should be answerable only for the deficiency in amount of such prior policy. The owners of the ship had before engaged that the license should be returned to the assured, free from indorsement, or other blemish which might injure its validity for any other vessel, the hirer to take no risks but those which were afterwards covered by the policy in question. The ship was arrested by a British vessel of war, and the license indorsed by the commander thereof in such a manner as to render it useless for any other vessel. It was holden, that this was not a double insurance, and that the loss was within the policy.
    
      Assumpsit upon a policy of insurance underwritten by the defendants, dated the 2d of February, 1813, for $2250, on a Sidmouth license on board the ship William and Henry, from Boston to Alexandria, the said license valued at $2000. The policy was in the usual printed form, having also the following memorandum attached to it, namely, “ Proposal of Samuel G. Perkins, $2250 on a Sid-mouth license on board the ship William and Henry, Prior, from Boston to Alexandria. The ship is in ballast, and is chartered or hired to take in a cargo for the Peninsula ; but the license is not filled up at all. The insurance is to be against its loss, not only by capture by the British or Americans, or other power, but [*215] against its being destroyed or rendered useless, by the * ordinary perils of the seas, fire, or otherwise.” The policy also contained this clause, namely, “ And it is hereby agreed, that, if the assured shall have made any other assurance upon the license aforesaid, prior in date to this policy, then this Insurance Company shall be answerable only for so much as the amount of such prior insurance may be deficient towards fully covering the property at risk.”
    The cause was tried upon the general issue, before the present Chief Justice, November term, 1813, when the following facts appeared in evidence, or were admitted by the parties.
    The defendants made the policy as declared on ; prior to which, namely, on the 26th of January preceding, the plaintiff, and the owners of the ship William and Henry, entered into certain articles of agreement, which contained, among other things, as follows, namely, That the said Perkins shall furnish to said owners a Sid-mouth license, to accompany said ship from Boston to Alexandria, free from expense to the ship-owners, when said license is to be returned to said Perkins free from indorsement or other blemish, which may injure the validity of such license for any other vessel the said Perkins may choose to use it for ; it being understood and agreed upon by the parties, that the said Perkins is to take no risk of said license, except such as may arise from capture by the British, or violence of our own vessels, and sea risk. And it is further agreed between the said parties, that, in case the said license shall be otherwise lost or injured, so as to render it useless to the said Perkins for any other vessel, or in case the said ship shall arrive safe, and the master thereof shall refuse or neglect to return the said license to the said Perkins,' or his agent or order, then the said owners agree to pay the said Perkins, or his order, on demand, the sum of $2000, with interest till paid.”
    This agreement was in full force when the policy declared on was made, and has never been cancelled ; and the amount covered by the agreement was the same which was * covered by [*216] the policy, deducting the premium note. In pursuance of the said agreement, a license for Lisbon was furnished the owners by the plaintiff, being the same insured by the policy declared on.
    The said ship, on or about the 8th of February, 1813, sailed from Boston for Alexandria, with the said license on board not filled up. On the 14th of the same month, at the entrance into Chesapeake Bay, she was boarded from the British ship of war Maidstone, and Prior, the master, was ordered on board the said ship of war, with his papers. After the papers were examined, the commanding officer of said ship indorsed the said license as follows, namely, “ In pursuance of orders from the Right Hon. Sir John Barlose Warren, Baronet, commander-in-chief, &c., &c., &c., to place the Chesapeake and its rivers under strict and rigorous blockade, you are hereby required and directed to put to sea in the William, and Henry, under your command, and quit this anchorage, being under blockade ; and should you be found violating this order, you will be seized and sent in for condemnation. Given under my hand, on board H. M. S> Maidstone, the 15th February, 1813, in Lynnhaven Bay. Geo. ,Burdett, sen. officer.”
    Several witnesses testified that a license so treated could not be used for any other vessel, and would not sell for any thing in the market.
    In consequence thereof the master of said ship did not attempt to violate the blockade ; but on the following day sailed for Philadelphia, where she arrived on the 27th of February, after meeting with sundry impediments in going up the Delaware. Notice of the blockade of the Chesapeake was first had in Boston by its publication in the Columbian Centinel of the 20th of the same month. At the same time, or within a few days, notice was had of the blockade of the Delaware ; and both continued to the time of the trial of this action.
    On the 27th of the same February, the plaintiff, having heard that the ship had been turned away from the Chesapeake, *and the license indorsed as above, made his offer of [*217] abandonment, and on the 10th of March following, having then received certain advices of the turning away of the ship, and the indorsement of the license, he again abandoned to the defendants, who then, as well as before, refused to accept the same.
    The plaintiff had never had said license in his possession since making said insurance ; but it appeared that on the 15th of March he demanded it of the ship-owners, according to their agreement; who answered that they had written for it, and should receive it in a few days, and would then deliver it to him. The plaintiff then demanded of them the $2000, which they refused to pay.
    On the 27th of March the ship-owners tendered the license, indorsed as aforesaid, to the plaintiff, which he refused to receive, alleging as reasons, that they did not deliver it when he demanded it, and also that by the indorsement it was rendered useless for any other vessel. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendants had, after the abandonment, ever exercised any right of ownership over the said license, except the demand made by the plaintiff, as above stated ; but the license had ever since remained with the owners of the ship.
    In order to save the questions of law arising on these facts for the consideration of the whole Court, the judge directed the jury that the loss, if any, was not within the prior agreement between the plaintiff and the ship-owners ; and also, that, if they found that by the indorsement the license was rendered useless for any other vessel, or, by the indorsement and the blockade of the Chesapeake, useless for a voyage from Alexandria, they should find for the plaintiff as for a total loss ; which they did ; and if, upon the foregoing facts, the plaintiff ought to recover, the verdict was to stand, and judgment to be rendered thereon, with additional damages for interest from the time the verdict was returned; otherwise, the verdict was to be set aside, and the plaintiff to become nonsuit.
    * The cause was argued by Hubbard, for the plaintiff, and by Gorham, for the defendants ;
    and the opinion of the Court was delivered by
   Putnam, J.

It has been contended, on the part of the defendants, that this is a double insurance ; the contract on the part of the owners of the ship being, in effect, a prior insurance.

But we are all of opinion that this reasoning is not well founded, even if this contract should be considered, in effect, as an insurance against the risks to be borne by the owners of the ship.

A double insurance is, where one insures the same thing twice over against the same perils. But here the perils undertaken by the owners of the ship are not the same which the defendants assumed. The owners engaged, in effect, that the license should not be destroyed or injured by them or any under them. The defendants' took other risks. Thus, where one procures an insurance from one underwriter against the danger of the seas ; from another against the danger of the enemy ; from a third against the barratry of the master, &c. ; although these several insurances are upon the same ship, they are not double ; because the assured can never receive more than one satisfaction. So where persons, having different interests in the same thing, insure each his separate concern, as in the case of Godin & al. vs. The London Insurance Company; in which cases the assured can never recover more than one indemnity. But it is otherwise in a double insurance ; for there the assured receives payment twice for the same thing.

It has been further insisted for the defendants, that there has not been a loss within thp policy ; that the plaintiff permitted the owners of the ship to use this license as one of the muniments of the ship ; that it could not be afterwards used for any other vessel without fraud ; and, therefore, that the indorsement of it made no difference ; for that it was as complete a protection for that ship after it was indorsed as before ; and further, that the injury was from a lawful act of * the belligerent, and in consequence of the [*219] blockade, a risk not taken by the defendants.

The case leaves no doubt as to the intention of the parties. It is not intimated that the plaintiff did not fully disclose to the defendants the voyage which he contemplated, and every material fact relating to the property insured. The defendants do not pretend that they were ignorant of the nature of the trade, or of the manner in which it was carried on. They knew that the license was in blank, and that it was left so for the purpose of filling it up at the port where the vessel should load, according to the terms contained in the paper. The only use or advantage, which the parties could have supposed would be made of it in blank, on the passage from Boston to Alexandria, was, that the enemy might suffer the ship to pass, under a belief that she would be employed in the licensed trade to the Peninsula. It is a valued policy. The defendants undertook to indemnify the plaintiff, if the license should be destroyed or rendered useless, not only by capture by the British or Americans, but “ by the ordinary perils of the seas, fire, or otherwise.” On her passage to Alexandria, the ship was taken by the enemy, who indorsed the license, and thereby made it applicable to that ship alone.

But it is insisted that the license was not lost by capture ; for that the paper was not taken by the enemy and appropriated to their use, but was suffered to remain a complete protection for the ship.

It is true, indeed, that the enemy so far respected the license in blank, as not to make prize of the ship. But, while she was in their possession, they rendered the license entirely useless for any other vessel. This, we think, was precisely such a risk as the parties contemplated at the time the policy was effected.

Indeed, the principles of blockade do not apply between enemies. But, if this had been a neutral ship, and bound to a port blockaded by the enemy, we do not think the loss * could [*220] be ascribed to the violation of the blockade. The ship had no knowledge of the blockade. She could not be considered as violating it, until after she had been warned not to enter. The enemy had no right to destroy the ship or goods under pretence of exercising a belligerent right. Suppose the enc nay had burned the paper, would such loss be attributed to the blockade ?

There was, in the case at bar, no necessity for indorsing the notice on this license. It might, with as much or more propriety, have been entered on the register of the ship. In that event there would have been no loss ; for the license would have been carried in the ship to Philadelphia, and transmitted to the plaintiff unblemished. We are all of opinion that the verdict ought to stand.

Judgment according to the verdict. 
      
      
        Col. Ins. Co. vs. Linch, 11 Johns. 233. — Peters vs. Delaware Ins. Co., 5 Serg. & Rawle, 473. — Warden vs. Horton, 4 Binney, 539.
     
      
       1 Burr. 49.
     
      
      
        Quære, if the subject of the insurance was legal ? Patton vs Nicholson, 3 Wheat, 204 — The Hiram, Wheat. 440. — 8 Crunch, 444. — The Aurora, 8 Cranch, 203. — The Julia, 8 Cranch, 181. — 1 Gallis. 594. — Craig vs U. S. Ins. Co., Peters C. C. R. 410. — The Aurora, 4 Hall, Am Law Journ. 473.— The Ariadne, 2 Wheat. 143. — The Langdon Cheves, 4 Wheat. 103. — Ogden vs. Barker, 18 Johns. 87.— Colquhoun vs. N. Y. Fire Ins Co, 15 Johns. 352. — Sed vide Hayward vs. Blake, ante, 176. — Bulklev vs. Derby Fishing Co, 1 Con. Rep. 571.
     