Case Name: Amos Holbrook, Administrator of Samuel Holbrook, versus Samuel Brown
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1807-03
Citations: 1 Tyng 280
Docket Number: 
Parties: * Amos Holbrook, Administrator of Samuel Holbrook, versus Samuel Brown.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 259–261

Head Matter:
* Amos Holbrook, Administrator of Samuel Holbrook, versus Samuel Brown.
By an insurance on property on board a ship, effected in behalf of the master ot the ship, whose only interest on board was his commission, of seven and a half per cent on the cargo homeward, such commission is insured.
This was an action on a policy of insurance, dated April 27, A. D. 1802, “ on property in the brig Lavinia, Samuel Holbrook master, from the third day of January, 1802, off Cape Augulus, to her port of discharge in the United States, with liberty to touch at the usual places for refreshment.” The plaintiff demands for a total loss alleged to have arisen from storms and the violence of the seas, whereby the ship and cargo were utterly lost. Upon the general issue pleaded, the action was tried at the last November term, before Parker, J., and the following special verdict returned, viz.: “ The jury find that the defendant made and subscribed the policy declared upon, and that the contract filed in the case was duly made between Samuel Holbrook ” (the plaintiff’s intestate) “ and the owners of the ship Lavinia, and that he would have been entitled to demand the commissions therein agreed to be paid him, in case of the ship’s arrival; and that the same commissions would nave exceeded the sum insured in the policy. They also find that the brig and cargo were lost, as alleged in the declaration, and that the said Samuel Holbrook was deceased at the time of bringing this unit. If, upon these facts, the plaintiff is by law entitled to recover the jury find that the defendant did promise in manner and form as the plaintiff" has alleged, and assess damages in the sum of nine hundred and twenty dollars; otherwise, they find the defendant did not promise.”
The contract referred-to in this verdict was made between the owners of the Lavinia, and Holbrook, the master. He engaged to go to the north-west coast of America, collect furs, proceed to Canton, there exchange his furs for China goods, with which he was to return to the United States; and he was to have seven and a hal per cent, of the return cargo from Canton, for all his services in conducting the voyage.
It was agreed that the above-mentioned commission was the only interest which the intestate had in the cargo ; and the [*281 ] * question was whether, upon this policy, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
For the plaintiff
it was observed that the contract of insurance, so essential to the interests of commerce, will always be favored in a court of law. Thus it has been held that any qualified property, any legal or equitable interest in goods," may be insured. Different persons, having each a qualified property in goods, may insure them to the full value. So captors may insure their prize before condemnation. Trustees having the' disposal of ships and goods, according to the directions they may receive from third persons, may insure. Wherever there is a legal lien, there is an insurable interest. So a reasonable expectation of profits may be insured.
Though it is against the policy of the law to permit seamen tc insure their wages, the same objection does not lie against an insurance of the commissions of a consignee or supercargo. Lord Kenyon is said to have expressed a very strong opinion that the commission of a consignee was a good insurable interest. In the case of Robinson vs. The New York Insurance Company, Tompkins, J., in delivering the opinion of the Court, says it was conceded, on the argument of the cause, that the "plaintiff (who as supercargo was to receive a gross sum in lieu of commissions) had an insurable interest.
In the case at bar, it appears that Holbrook was to have 7J 100th parts of the cargo brought from Canton, so that he may be considered as joint owner of the goods in the proportion of his interest.
For the defendant
it was agreed that commissions are a proper and legal subject of assurance, when insured eo nomine. But it was argued that they ought to be specifically stated to the underwriter, as there is a great difference between this risk and that upon property in goods, and the premium is accordingly different in the two cases. In case of a partial loss, there can * be no salvage on an insurance of commissions, as the [ * 282 ] / merchandise would be abandoned to the underwriters )n the cargo.
Property, though very extensive in its signification, must be understood to mean merchandise, some specific articles in which property may be had. And in proof of loss we have a right to demand invoices and bills of lading, which are not produced, and which indeed do not exist in this case. Lord Kenyon’s opinion was in a case where the commissions were insured by that name.
The assured in this case had no property on board. He was not entitled to those commissions until he had performed the whole of his engagement, and the voyage was completed by the arrival of the ship at her port of discharge in the United States. Until that time the whole of the cargo was the property of the shippers — subject, indeed, to the master’s claim to his commissions on its safe delivery.
Otis and Richardson for the plaintiff.
Amery for the defendant.
Grant vs. Parkinson, Marshall, 111. — Godin vs. Lond. Assur. 1 Burr. 489. — 1 W. Black. 103.— Le Cras vs. Hughes, Marsh. 84.— Crawford, & Al. vs. Hunter, 8 Term Rep. 13. — Glover vs. Black, 3 Burr. R. 1394. — 1 W. Black. 399.
Marshal, 112.
2 N. Y. T. R. 357.

Opinion:
By the Court
(absents Parsons, C. J.) —This word property is very comprehensive; and there can be no doubt it was the inten tian of the parties to cover this interest of Holbrook, the master, whether it was to be considered as commission, or as a specific proportion of the cargo belonging exclusively to him. The earnings of the master were completed at Canton; and if he had died on the homeward passage, and the ship arrived in safety, his executors would have been entitled to the share of the goods he was to receive. When this cargo was laden on board at Canton, the master, in virtue of the contract between him and the owners, was entitled to 7jj 100th parts of it. This was, beyond all doubt, an insurable interest, and the verdict having found the loss, there must be
Judgment for the plaintiff