expression, each description of goods, is readily understood when applied to raw materials, as cotton, iron, wool, flax, &c. ; but when these raw materials have been manufactured into prints, cutlery, cloth, linen, &c., or into fabrics combining more than one of the above-mentioned raw materials, it is difficult to lay down any general rule by which the expression ought to be interpreted." In one case which came before the Courts, where a shipmaster had insured £100 upon his effects, comprising many different articles, such as clothing, books, nautical instruments, &c., it was held that the assured might recover for a total loss of part of his property, notwithstanding the warranty. The ground upon which this decision was given is set forth in the judgment of Williams, J., as follows:-"The articles which constitute the master's effects have no natural or artificial connection with each other, but, of necessity, must be essentially different in their nature and kind, in their value, in the use to be made of them, and the mode in which they were disposed on board" (e). A similar decision was shortly afterwards come to with regard to a policy on an emigrant's equipment, part of which had been totally lost. On that occasion, the same learned judge whose remarks were last cited observed :-" As soon as it is ascertained that the goods are of different species, it is as if the different species were enumerated," but he gave no definition of the term species (f). It would be safe to hold that goods which come under different designations and are recognized as distinct articles of trade belong to different species. Should this criterion be insufficient, the Courts would doubtless be guided, as they were in the two cases above cited, by the probable intentions of the parties to be inferred from the nature of the adventure and the wording of the policy. It appears questionable how far the insertion of, separate valuations in the policy would be held to constitute a division in the insurance. Where, under a power given in a floating (e) Duff v. Mackenzie, 3 C. B. N. S. 29. (f) Wilkinson v. Hyde, 3 C. P. N. S. 44. policy on rice, to declare subsequently, the policy was indorsed with the declaration :-" (R) 500 bags rice per Laidmans, at 8s. 3d. per bag, £206 5s. Od.," it was held that, it was not within the proper scope of the declaration to vary the risk of average by constituting a separate insurance on each bag, as was contended for by the assured; and doubt was expressed as to whether the words of the declaration would have had the desired effect, if inserted in the body of the policy (g). If, however, each package, or parcel of goods, composing the subject-matter of the policy were originally valued at a specified sum, such valuation would probably be held to imply an intention to effect a separate insurance on each part so distinguished, as it would be difficult to assign any other motive for its insertion in a policy warranted free from particular average (h). XVIII.—RULE OF ADJUSTMENT. We have next to consider the mode in which a particular average on goods is to be stated when the subject insured arrives sea-damaged at the port of destination. The rule of adjustment which is to be applied in all such cases was laid down by the Court of King's Bench more than one hundred years ago (i), and is as follows:-The market price for which the goods would have sold at the port of destination, if they had arrived there in a sound condition, is to be compared with the price for which they actually sell, arriving there damaged; and, the ratio, or per-centage, of deterioration suffered by the goods having thus been found, is to be applied to the value in the policy (k) to arrive at the amount payable by the underwriters (7). In other words, the assured will recover such pro (g) Entwistle v. Ellis, 2 H. & N. 549; 27 L. J. (Ex.) 105. (h) Arnould, 4th ed., p. 907. (i) In Lewis v. Rucker, 2 Burr. 1167 (1761). (k) i.e., in the case of a valued policy. Where the policy is an open one, the value has first to be found, and then the adjustment will proceed upon the same lines. (7) Or, as Lord Mansfield stated the rule in Lewis v. Rucker, the under portion or aliquot part of the policy value as corresponds with the proportion or aliquot part of the sound value lost by reason of the damage. Thus, if the sound market value be £100, the damaged market value £50, and the insured value £80; the assured will recover £40, that being the proportion of the insured value which corresponds with the per-centage of deterioration suffered by the goods. XIX.-COMPARISON OF GROSS VALUES. For some time after this fundamental principle of adjustment was established, it remained uncertain whether the percentage of deterioration was to be fixed by a comparison of gross or net values; but, the question was eventually decided in favour of the uniform adoption of gross values on both sides of the account. The reasons for this decision are to be found stated with great force and clearness in the judgment of the Court of King's Bench in the case of Johnson v. Shedden (m), delivered by Lawrence, J., when the question as to the true basis for the adjustment of particular average on goods was examined in a most searching and comprehensive manner. Reverting to the judgment of the Court in Lewis v. Rucker, his Lordship observed, that it was decided on that occasion that the amount of the underwriter's liability was to be regulated by the measure of deterioration sustained by the sea-damaged commodity, as shown by a comparison of the market prices, sound and damaged respectively. What, then, was the market price of anything? It was the sum which the commodity would sell for in the market after the payment of all charges incurred to bring it there; for "when a commodity has been offered for sale to one who has nothing further to pay than the sum the seller is to receive, it is the quality of the goods, which, in forming a fair and rational judgment, can alone influence him in determining writer "takes the proportion of the difference between sound and damaged at the port of delivery, and pays that proportion upon the value of the goods what he shall pay. He has nothing to do with what it may have cost the seller; and the goodness of the thing is the criterion which must regulate the price; for, being liable to no other charges, he has only to consider its intrinsic value; and, therefore, if a sound commodity will go as far again as a damaged commodity, by having twice its strength, or by being in any other respect twice as useful, he will give twice the money for the sound that he will for the damaged; and so in proportion. Το say that this is not the rule will be to assert, what I conceive it will be difficult to prove, that the market price of things is not proportioned to their respective values." It was accordingly determined that the measure of deterioration is, in all such cases, to be ascertained by a comparison of the prices, sound and damaged respectively, obtainable from the buyer after all charges have been paid by the party from whom he buys it; or, in other words, by the difference of the gross produce, and not by the difference of the net produce. XX.-OBJECTIONS TO THE SYSTEM EXAMINED. It has been deemed advisable to explain with some minuteness the leading principles which regulate the adjustment of particular average on goods, and the reasons given in support of them; because, the soundness of those principles has often been called in question, owing to a practical difficulty attending their application. That difficulty, stated in brief, is as follows: The insurance of goods for an amount sufficient to fully indemnify the owner in case of total loss is, in general, insufficient to afford a full indemnity in case of particular average. At first sight, it may appear that such a divergence ought not to occur, but a more careful examination will explain the seeming anomaly. The amount which the owner of the goods has at risk as against total loss is either the prime cost and shipping charges, with premiums of insurance, or the net market value at destination, according as the standard of indemnity is fixed at the outset or expiration of the risk. To be fully protected, in the event of total loss, the owner must cover by Р insurance the prime cost, shipping charges (including advances on account of freight, if any), premiums of insurance and expected profit—the sum of those quantities, if rightly estimated, making up the net market value at the port of delivery. The difference between the net and gross market values at destination is composed of the freight payable abroad, duties and sale charges, neither of which is it necessary to insure against the risk of total loss, as the assured does not incur them in that event. In case of particular average, however, it is the gross sound value at the port of delivery which suffers depreciation; so that, unless the owner is insured for the amount of such value, he fails to obtain a full indemnity. The market price is, as we have seen, the true criterion of the worth of an article of trade; and if, owing to damage sustained, the worth of the article is diminished to the extent of one-half, one-third, or otherwise, the price is proportionably reduced. This depreciation affects the entire price, so that every element which is included in the market value suffers in the same degree. It cannot be maintained that the deterioration is confined to the prime cost and does not extend to the freight, duties, and other charges incurred prior to sale; for all those charges are included in the price, which is affected as a whole. From these considerations, it is evident that, when goods arrive at their destination sea-damaged, the deterioration resulting therefrom diminishes the gross sound value in a degree commensurate with the extent of the damage; and, if the owner is insured up to the full amount of that value, he will recover the full amount of his loss; but, if he is only insured to the extent of the value at the outset of the risk, or of the net market value at destination, he will only recover such a proportion of his loss as the sum insured bears to the gross sound value. The remainder of the loss attaches to a part of the value which is uninsured; and the underwriter, having received no premium for insuring that part, cannot reasonably be expected to make good the loss devolving upon it (n). (n) For instance, take the case of goods insured for £80, being the esti mated net market value at destination, the gross value being £100, and the |