The earnings and expenses of the Northern Central Railroad, its branches and leased lines, for the year ending December 31, 1866, are shown in the following statement:

Gross earnings..

21,010

133,145

40,898

69,329

151

16,766

25,450

650

1,400

11,550

142,721

8,292

2,935 7,047

65,555

2,799 7,698

$2,959,013 $27,598 $348,138 $517,521 $80,985 $108,861

The expenses of transportation, maintenance, &c., were

The following is a recapitulation of the above account of earnings and

The general financial account showing the total financial operations for the

The condition of the company at the close of the present year is shown in the

For some years it has been the policy of this company, the report says, to charge whatever additional equipments was purchased and put upon the road to the ordinary working expenses, until we have an equipment now worth, at a gold valuation, $2,132,000, instead of $1,382,000, as represented upon our books, the difference amounting to $750,000. This, with the $787,769 already credited to profit and loss, shows a surplus fund of over a million and a half. Speaking of the wear of roads, the same report remarks: "We have, in common with all the railroads of the country, suffered very much from the rapidity with which the iron rails wear out. The average life of a rail has diminished fully 50 per cent. during the last ten years, they lasting now but three years. This causes an expenditure in maintaining the road which tells severely upon the working expenses. We are not prepared to say that the railroad iron now manufactured in this country is inferior in quality, but in the increase of speed by our passenger trains and the increase in weight of engines, together with the increased tonnage, may account for their rapid destruction."

MOBILE AND OHIO RAILROAD.

The 19th annual report of this company gives the following results of operating their road for the year 1866, which we compare with those of 1860:

1866.
(486 m.)
$902,719 04

66

mails..

1860.
(415 m.)
$392,247 23
958,030 91
41,925 75
10,651 50

Increase. $510,471 81

1,433,491 15

475,460 24

42,794 00
70,281 90

868 25 59,627 40

The road commenced running on federal currency May 15, 1855. The earn ings for the seven and a half remaining months of that year amounted to $1,418,976 30. The earnings for the same months in 1866 amounted to $1,496,517 86. The increase of total earnings has thus been very small, while the receipts from freight fell from $894,541 38 in 1865 to $833,494 29 in 1866, the cotton crop along the road having signally failed, and disappointed the natural anticipations of a largely increased business, expressed by the President in his report for 1865. The cotton transported on the road in 1866 was only about one half the quantity reported for 1860.

The financial condition of the company has not been materially changed since the previous report; on Dec. 31. 1865, the amount indebtedness, except bonds, was $1,492,757.53; and on Dec. Bi the bonded debt are as folle w.

1866 #1021 611.13. The changes

This shows that some progress has been made in funding; but owing to the unfavorable course of business during the past year the resumption of the payment of interest has been put off to May 1, 1868, the foreign creditors having acceded to this arrangement, with the condition that simple interest at 6 per cent be allowed on the coupons matured, and that will mature up to Nov. 1, 1867, the company to issue for the amount, coupon bonds the same in form as the original bonds, the coupons in the meanwhile to remain in trust as collateral security. Regarding the home bonds, the President says-" As the assurance has always been given that bondholders on both sides of the Atlantic should fare as nearly alike as possible, it only remains for those on this side to enter into a similar agreement in order to close this arrangement."

COMMERCIAL LAW.-No. 33.

(Continued from page 363, vol. 56.)

FIRE INSURANCE (CONTINUED).

OF THE INTEREST OF THE

INSURED.

As to what interest in the insured is sufficient to support an insurance, the principle is the same in fire as in marine insurance. Any legal interest is sufficient. And if it be equitable in the sense that a court of equity will recognize and protect it, that is sufficient; but a merely moral or expectant interest is not enough. So one has an insurable interest in a house placed on another's land with that other's consent, but not if placed there without license or shadow of title. So, too, one who has made only an oral bargain with another to purchase that other's house, cannot insure it; but if there be a valid contract in law, or if by writing or by part perform ance it is enforceable in a court of equity, the purchaser may insure. So he may, although there be a stipulation, the breach of which has made the contract void by its terms, if the other party might waive the condition and enforce the contract. So, if a debtor assign his property to pay his debts, he has an insurable interest in it until the debts are paid, or until the property be sold. This was so held where it appeared that

the property would pay the debts and leave a surplus for the assignor; but we should expect the same ruling where thir was not the case.

A mortgagor may insure the whole value of his property, even after the possession has passed to the mortgagee, if the equity of redemption be not wholly gone. So he may if his equity of redemption is seized on execution, or even sold, so long as he may still redeem. And in case of loss he recovers the whole value of the building, if he be insured on it to that amount.

A morgagor and a mortgagee may both insure the same property, and neither need specify his interest, but simply call it his property. The mortgagee has an interest only equal to his debt, and founded upon it; and if the debt be paid, the interest ceases, and the policy is discharged; and he can recover no more than the amount of his debt. And if a house insured by a mortagee were damaged by fire, even considerably, or perhaps destroyed, it might be doubted, on what we should think good grounds, whether he could recover, if it were proved that the remaining value of the premises mortgaged was certainly more than sufficient to secure his debt, and all reasonably possible interest, cost, and charges.

Whether he can hold what he thus receives from the insurers, and also recover his debt from the debtor, we have considered in the article on Marine Insurance. We will only say, that, while recent decisions have thrown much doubt upon this question, we are still of opinion that he not do both; and that the insurers should generally be, in some way, substituted, as to his rights against the debtor, for the amount which they pay to him.

can

The question might possibly arise, whether the debtor could compel or require him to enforce his claims against the insurers, and then consider the debt paid thereby, for his benefit; but we should hold, very confidently, that he could not. In a recent case in Massachusetts, to which we have heretofore referred more than once, and which has been somewhat doubted, it was held that a mortgagee who, at his own expense, insures his interest in the property mortgaged against loss by fire, without particularly describing the nature of his interest, is entitled, in case of loss by fire before payment of the mortgage debt, to recover the amount of the loss from the insurers to his own use, without first assigning his mortgage, or any part thereof, to them. In an elaborate opinion, the court maintain that, notwithstanding respectable authorities to the contrary, when a mortgagee causes insurance to be made for his own benefit, paying the premium from his own funds, in case a loss occurs before his debt is paid, he has a right to receive the total loss for his own benefit; that he is not bound to account to the mortgagor for any part of the money so recovered, as part of the mortgage debt; but has still a rigat to recover his whole debt of the mortgagor. And so, on the other hand, when the debt is thus paid by the debtor, the money is not, in law or equity, the money of the insurer, who has thus paid the loss, or money paid to his use. Decisions which seem to oppose this ruling may be found in Pennsylvania, in New York, in the Supreme Court of the United States, and in England. But the questlon is not without its difficulty.

It has been held, for strong reasons, that if a mortgagor is bound by his contract with the mortgagee to keep the premises insured for the benefit of the mortgagee, and does keep them insured in his own name, the

mortgagee has an equitable interest in, or lien upon, the proceeds of the policy.

One who holds property only in right of his wife, may insure the property, even if his wife be only a joint tenant. And a tenant for years, or from year to year, may insure his interest, but would recover only the value of his interest, and not the value of the whole property.

We have said that, generally, any one having any legal interest in property may insure it as his own. Pat there is one important exception to, or modification of, this rule. By the charters of many of our mutual insurance companies, the company has a lien, to the amount of the premium note, on all property insured. It is obvious, therefore, that no such description can by given, or no such language used, as would induce the company to suppose they had a lien when they could not have one, or would in any way deceive them as to the validity or value of their lien. In all such cases, all encumbrances must be stated, and the title or interest of the insured fully stated in all those particulars in which it affects the lien.

A trustee, agent, or consignee may insure against fire, as he may against marine loss. Generally the consignee is not bound to insure against fire, but may, at his discretion. If the insurance is expressly on goods held on commission, the insurers must take notice that the owner does not retain possession of them, and that they are to be in the custodv, and under the vigilance, integrity and care of the consignor only. He may insure, expressly, his own interest in them for advances, or the owner's interest. It has been held in a recent case, and we think on excellent reasons, that a consignee may, by virte of his implied interest and authority, insure, in his own name, goods in his possession against fire, to their full value, and recover for the benefit of the owner. And if the interest be not expressed, the policy will be construed as not covering the interest of the owners, if, upon a fair construction of the words and facts, it seems to have been the intention of the parties only to secure the consignee's interest. And an insurance against fire upon merchandise in a warehouse, "for account of whom it may concern," protects only such interests as were intended to be insured at the time of effecting the in

surance.

It is now common for a commission merchant to cover in one policy, in his own name, all the goods of the various owners who have consigned to him. It has been held that the words "goods on commission,” in fire policies, have an effect equivalent to the words "for whom it may concern," in marine policies. And it was also intimated, but, as we think, on doubtful grounds, that, if the goods actually were held on commission, they would not be covered by the policy, unless so described, although the insured had a lien for advances; in this case, however, the condition in the policy excluded such goods.

A consignee of goods, sent to him, but not received, may insure his own interest in them against marine risks, and we know no reason why he may not against fire.

So, any bailee (which means any person to whom property has been delivered for any purpose), who has a legal interest in the chattels which he holds, although this be temporary and qualified, may insure the goods against fire. Thus it has been held that a common carrier by land, who