tion of § 1173. The eventual falsity of a representation as to Representaexpectation does not, in the absence of fraud, avoid the expectation policy. ARTICLE V. IMPLIED WARRANTIES. SECTION 1174. Seaworthiness defined. 1175. Seaworthiness warranted. 1176. When to exist. 1177. What constitutes seaworthiness. 1178. Different degrees. 1179. Unseaworthiness. 1180. Seaworthiness as to cargo. 1181. When no such warranty exists. ness defined § 1174. In every contract of marine insurance a warranty Seaworthiis implied, unless it is otherwise agreed, that the ship insured or by which freight insured is to be earned, or any other thing insured is to be carried, shall be seaworthy. Dixon v. Sadler, 5 M. & W., 405. Seaworthi ness im § 1175. Seaworthiness is the fitness of the ship to encounter the ordinary perils of the circumstances in which pliedly war. the policy contemplates its being placed. See M'Lanahan v. Universal Ins. Co., 1 Pet., 170; compare § 1176. The implied warranty of seaworthiness is complied with if the ship is seaworthy at the time of the commencement of the voyage, or, where the policy is intended to attach at a previous time, if it is seaworthy at that time. Id., and see 2 Pars. Mar. L., 134 ranted. things are constitute § 1177. The warranty of seaworthiness extends not what only to the condition of the structure of the ship itself, but required to requires that it be properly laden,' and provided with a seaworthi sufficient number of competent officers and seamen, and with the requisite appurtenances and equipments, such as ballast, cables and anchors,' cordage and sails, food, water, 2 ness. Different degrees of seaworthiness at different 5 fuel and lights, and other necessary and proper stores and 1 Weir v. Aberdeen, 2 B. & Ald., 320, and see Chase Deblois v. Ocean Ins. Co., 16 Pick., 303. Wilkie v. Geddes, 3 Dow, 57. 4 Wedderburn v. Beil, 1 Camp., 1. 6 Fontaine v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 10 Johns., 58; Moses v Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 1 Duer, 159. § 1178. Where different parts of the period or voyage contemplated by the policy differ in respect to the things requisite to make the ship seaworthy therefor, the warranty the voyage. is complied with if at the commencement of each portion the ship is seaworthy with reference to that portion. stages of Unseaworthiness during the voyage. Seaworthi- purposes of Time policy on ship at sea. Dixon v. Sadler, 5 M. & W., 414. § 1179. When the ship is rendered unseaworthy during the voyage to which the insurance relates, an unreasonable delay in repairing the defect is a breach of the warranty which wholly suspends the liability of the insurers so long as such delay continues. This section is proposed as being the doctrine best sustained by the somewhat conflicting cases. Compare 2 Pars. Mar. L., 140, and note. It may perhaps be deemed the more just rule that the insurer's liability should not be wholly suspended, but only suspended as to losses resulting from the breach. Id., 142. § 1180. A ship which is seaworthy for the purposes of an insurance upon the ship, may nevertheless, by reason of being unfitted to receive the cargo, be unseaworthy for the purposes of insurance upon the cargo. 1 Phil. Ins., § 723. See also 2 Pars. Mar. L., 145. § 1181. In a time policy upon a ship which was at sea when the risk commenced, there is no implied warranty that the ship was then seaworthy. Such warranty can only be express. This section is proposed to meet the difficulty apparent from the nature of the subject, and which has given rise to so many conflicting decisions. The ship is impliedly warranted as having been seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage; and it seems a just papers. § 1182. It is implied in a marine insurance that the ship Neutral shall have the requisite documents to show its neutrality in respect to belligerent powers. ARTICLE VI. THE VOYAGE AND DEVIATION. SECTION 1183, 1184. Voyage insured, how determined. 1185. Deviation, what. 1186. Excusable departure. 1187. Effect of deviation. Voyage in sured, how § 1183. When the voyage contemplated by the policy is described by the places of beginning and ending, the determined voyage insured is the course of sailing fixed by mercantile usage between those places. § 1184. If the course of sailing is not fixed by any established usage, the voyage insured is the way between the specified places, which, to a master of ordinary skill and discretion, would seem the most natural, direct, and advantageous. Martin v. Del. Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C., 254; Brown v. Tay- Id. what. § 1185. Deviation is any voluntary and unnecessary de- Deviation, parture from the course or mode of performing the voyage insured, mentioned in the last two sections. departure. § 1186. A departure from the usual course or mode of Excusable performing the voyage insured, which is compelled by necessity, or is made for the purpose of saving human life, is not a deviation. See 3 Kent, 323, respecting saving life. As to avoiding a 1187. The insurer is discharged from liability for any loss happening to the subject insured subsequently to the deviation. Deviation the insurer. exonerates Total and partial losses. What is a total loss. Partial loss. Actual and constructive total 1088. Presumed § 1188. A loss may be either total or partial. § 1189. A total loss within the meaning of the policy, may arise, either by a total destruction of the thing insured, or such an injury as leaves no part in its original state, or its loss by sinking, or by being broken in pieces, or so far damaged as to haye become valueless to the owner for the purposes for which he held it. See 2 Pars. Mar. L., 346; De Peyster v. Sun Mut. Ins. § 1190. Every loss which is not total is partial. § 1191. A total loss may be either actual or constructive. § 1192. An actual loss may be presumed from the conactual loss. tinued absence of the ship without being heard of. The length of time which is sufficient to raise this presumption depends on the circumstances of the case. ConstrucLive. Gordon v. Bowne, 2 Johns., 150; Marsh. Ins., 417. § 1193. Where the thing insured, though not actually destroyed or hopelessly lost, is so injured that it is worth less than half the market value thereof at the time of the loss, or that the performance of the contemplated voyage is prevented, the loss is a constructive total loss. on cargo, &c., when voyage is broken up. § 1194. When the ship is prevented, at an intermediate Insurance port, from completing the voyage, the master must make every exertion to procure in the same or contiguous port, another ship, for the purpose of conveying the goods to their destination; and the liability of the insurer thereon, continues after they are thus reshipped. Code de Com., 391, 392; Saltus v. Ocean Ins. Co., 12 Johns.. § 1195. The insurer is bound, besides, for damages, expense of discharging, storage, reshipment, surplus freight, and all other costs incurred in saving the goods, up to the amount insured. Ibid., 393; Bridges v. Niagara Ins. Co., 1 Hall, 423. Cost of re shipment, &c ing goods. § 1196. If, within a reasonable time, the master cannot Abandonfind a ship in which to send forward the goods, the insured may abandon. Ibid. § 1197. Upon an actual total loss the insured is entitled When insu to payment without giving notice of abandonment. Gordon v. Bowne, 2 Johns., 150. § 1198. Where profits are insured, and the goods are not insured, the insurer is not liable for a loss unless the insured offers to abandon the goods. Tom v. Smith, 3 Cai., 245. red is entitled to payment. Abandongoods on ment of insurance of profits. ment. § 1199. Upon a constructive total loss the insured has a Abandonright to abandon the subject insured to the insurer, as prescribed in the next article, and to recover payment of the whole indemnity promised by the policy. subjects. § 1200. If different things or class of things are insured Several by the same policy and separately valued, the right to abandon may exist in respect to a part as well as in respect to all. Deiderick v. Com. Ins. Co., 10 Johns., 234. § 1201. If the insured omits to abandon, he theless recover his actual loss. Suydam v. Marine Ins. Co., 2 Johns., 138; Earl v. Shaw, 1 Johns. Cas., 313. |