will be entitled to reduce the demand by credits in his favor as against the assignor, until notified of the assignment, but no longer.1

-

$444. Policies of Insurance. A class of claims which frequently become the subject of assignment, either absolutely or as security for debt, are policies of insurance. These are peculiarly affected by the want of notice, as well on account of the stipulations in the policy, as by reason of some points of essential difference between contracts of this kind and those of a more general character. Where, by the terms of the policy, the assured is required to give notice of its assignment, together with the transfer of the insured property, in order to save the policy from forfeiture, there is a stronger reason for enforcing this condition against the assignee than exists with reference to ordinary assignable contracts. The obligation assumed by the insurer to indemnify the assured against loss, is, to a considerable extent, personal in its character. It is an obligation he might be willing to assume in favor of one person, while if the indemnity were in favor of a different person, the risk might in the estimation of the insurer be considerably enhanced.2

8445. Notice to Insurer. Notice to the insurer, of the mortgage of the insured property, and the assignment of the mortgagor's interest in the policy to the mortgagee, is required, in order that the party liable may be fully advised as to who has an interest in the indemnity. But while such notice, as in other cases of assignment, may suffice to prevent the payment of the loss, should one occur, to the assured, regardless of the rights of his assignee, it will not prevent a subsequent forfeiture of the policy, by a breach of its essential conditions on the part of the mortgagor.3

S446. Conditions of Policy. So where the owner of a vessel procured insurance thereon and assigned the policy to a mort

'Bartlett v. Pearson, 29 Me., 9.

Hobbs v. Memphis Ins. Co., 1 Sneed, 444.

3 Grosvenor v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 17 N. Y., 391.

gagee, with the assent of the insurer, it was held that the assignee took subject to all the conditions of the policy, and a subsequent over-insurance by the mortgagor would render the first policy void, this being one of the conditions upon which it was issued.1

447. Assignment of Subject of Insurance. But in a case of insurance where one of the conditions of the policy was, that, in case the interest in the property of the insured was conveyed without the consent of the insurer, the policy should thereby be rendered void, it was held that such forfeiture should not affect the insurance upon an interest previously conveyed or assigned with the consent of the insurer.2

§ 448. By Retiring Partners. Where the terms of the policy prohibit an assignment without notice, an assignment by the retiring member of a partnership, to his late co-partner, is equally within the terms of the prohibition as though it had been made to a stranger.3

$449. Notice may be Implied. -Notice of the assignment of an insurance policy, or of an interest in the subject of insurance need not be express. It may, like any other fact, be inferred from other facts and circumstances. So, where a retiring partner assigned his interest to his co-partner, who continued the payment of the premiums to the agent of the insurer for four years after such assignment, these facts were held to be competent evidence from which the jury might draw the inference that the assignment was known to the insurer when the premiums were received, and such knowledge would dispense with any formal notice."

$450. Assignment after Loss. An assignment of a policy of insurance, without notice of such assignment to the insurer, does not always work a forfeiture of the interest in the policy.

'Buffalo Steam Engine Works v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 17 N. Y., 401; State Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 31 Penn. St., 438; Contra, see Trader's Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 9 Wend., 404.

Boynton v. Clinton & Essex Insurance Co., 16 Barb., 254. 'Buckley . Garrett, 47 Penn. St., 204.

This is probably true of all policies after the occurrence of the loss, by which the demand is rendered absolute and unconditional. But notice of assignment after loss, would be required for substantially the same reasons as apply to the assignment of other things in action. It has been held that the assignment of a policy by the assured, without notice to the insurer left the proceeds of the policy in the order and disposition of the insured, and upon his becoming bankrupt, the same went to his assignees.1

IV. NOTICE TO CARRIERS AND OTHER BAILEES.

§ 451. Division of the Subject.

452. Notice of Goods Delivered for Carriage.

453. Deposited at Wharf or Left at Receiving House.

454. When Notice Necessary.

455. Delivery Pursuant to Understanding.

456. Delivery on Private Wharf.

457. Stoppage in Transitu.

458. Inquiry Confined to Affect upon Carriers.

459. Time of Giving Notice.

460. During Transit.

461. Before Arrival and Demand.

462. Concurrent Facts.

463. Effect of Notice.

464. End of Transitus by Delivery.

465. Fact of Delivery Determined by Intent.

466. Consignee's Possession Ends Transit.

467. Views of Chancellor Kent.

468. Carrier Discharged by Notice at End of Journey 469. Storage in Government Warehouse.

470. Notice to Employer.

471. Responsibility of Carrier.

472. Effect of Assigning Bill of Lading.

1In re Colville, 1 Montag., 110.

473. Must be to Bona Fide Purchaser.

474. End of Transit by Interception.

475. Preferred to Judgment Creditor.

476. By Whom Given.

477. By Factor.

478. By Party to Contract Respecting the Goods.

479. By Owner's Guarantor.

480. By Agent.

The matter with respect to

$451. Division of the Subject. which notice affects carriers and other bailees for hire, so as to create liabilities in favor of others and against them, has reference. 1. To the delivery of the goods, wares and merchandise to be carried, or the things committed to their charge. 2. Notice of rights of others in conflict with those of consignees. § 452. Notice of Goods Delivered to Carrier. Circumstances beyond the control of the consignor or bailor may prevent such a direct or personal delivery of the things bailed, into the possession of the bailee, as to render it certain beyond a doubt that they are actually received. The employment of inadequate means and facilities for storage or handling of the goods, or incompetent or dishonest agents or servants, may render it extremely inconvenient, or even impossible, for the bailor to deliver the things when and where the other party is prepared to take them into his possession and receipt for them, so that there will be no room to doubt the completion of the transaction and the perfection of the bailee's liability. This branch of the law is practically applied almost exclusively to the liability assumed by carriers; but as, under the same circumstances, substantially the same rule would govern other bailees for hire, the principles here enunciated will be understood to apply in a general way to all cases of bailment."

* Carriers may also be charged with notice of the character of goods deliv. ered to them for carriage, and when so notified will be held responsible for the care of the goods according to their peculiar nature. For such purposes, printed or other notice on the package will have this effect, as: "GlassWith care-This side up." Hastings v. Pepper, 11 Pick., 41; Mechs. and Traders' Bank v. Gordon, 5 La. An., 604.

§ 453. Deposited at Wharf. - When goods are deposited for transportation at a public wharf, where there is no one acting on behalf of the carrier to receive them, and there has been no previous arrangement with the carrier that leaving them at such place shall be treated as equivalent to a delivery, in order to render the carrier liable, as such, for the goods, he should have notice that they were left at the wharf for the purpose of being transported by the carrier notified.' But when the articles were shown to have been left at a receiving house, where the carrier was accustomed to receive parcels, and were delivered to some one in charge of the house, this was held to be the legal equivalent of actual personal delivery to the carrier himself, and the time of so leaving the goods would be the date of the inception of the carrier's liability."

§454. When Notice Necessary. When, however, from the circumstances surrounding the transaction, it is adjudged necessary to give notice to the carrier that the articles have been left for him at some public place, as a wharf or landing, unless the bailor has done so in conformity to some established custom of the carrier, or a previous direction from him, either express or implied, such carrier may refuse to accept the goods at that place. It is only when the carrier, upon receiving notice, expressly or tacitly assents to such delivery, that such notice operates to create a liability to the bailor, by which the carrier would become responsible for the articles delivered.3 As the carrier

$455. Delivery Pursuant to Understanding. will be bound, without express notice, by a delivery at the place indicated by custom for receiving articles for transportation, by a much stronger reason would his responsibility arise from a deposit at a place where he had agreed to receive freight. Such deposit has been held to be implied notice in itself, and sufficient to fix the carrier's liability.5

1 Buckman v. Levi, 3 Camp., 414.

* Burrell v. North, 2 Carr. & K., 680; Packard v. Getman, 6 Cow., 757. 'Ibid; Buckman v. Levi, 3 Camp., 414.

4 Burrell v. North, Supra.

'Merriam v. H. & N. H. R. R. Co., 20 Conn., 354.