Where the value of the property insured is agreed upon by the parties, and this value is stated in the policy, usually or always by the phrase "valued at $------," such a policy is called a valued policy.

This valuation is final and conclusive upon both parties. (v) l It must not, however, make the policy a wager policy, which it would do if the property so valued had no real value. (w) But all maritime property - and merchandise far more than the ship - may have very wide limits, within which a valuation may be honest and valid. And after much adjudication on the subject of valued policies, it may be said, that a mere exaggeration of a real and an actual value, if it was not enormous and out of all proportion to the fact, would not avoid the valuation. (x) It is, however, certain that a valuation intended to cover an illegal interest, or to insure illegally in respect to the peril, (y) or made fraudulently, would be void; (z) and an excessive over-valuation might be evidence of fraud. (a)

(ss) Plahto v. Merchants Ins. Co. 88 Mo. 248; Hartshorn v. Shoe, Ac. Ins. Co. 15 Gray 240.

(t) Entwisle v. Ellis, 2 H. & N. 649. But the insurers may agree to alter the terms of the contract by the indorsement Kennebec Co. v. Augusta Ins. Co. 6 Gray, 204. Though it seems that if the indorsement alters the policy, the fact that the underwriters place their initials to the indorsement is not conclusive evidence of their assent to the alteration. Entwisle v. Ellis, supra. The policy and the indorsement should be construed together, unless they cannot be reconciled, in which case the indorsement should govern. Protection Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 6 Ohio State, 663.

(u) New York Ins. Co. v. Roberts, 4 Duer, 141; E. Carver Co. v. Manuf. Ins. Co. 6 Gray, 214; Hartshorn v. Shoe & L. Dealers Ins. Co. 16 Gray, 240; Orient Ins. Co. v. Wright, 23 How. 401; Sun Ins. Co. v. Wright, id. 412; Edwards v. St. Louis Ins. Co. 7 Mo. 382; Douville v. Sun Ins. Co. 12 La. An. 269.

(v) Hodgson v. Mar. Ins. Co. 6 Cranch, 100, 6 Cranch, 206; Miner v. Tagert, 8 Binn. 204; Coolidge v. Gloucester Ins. Co. 16 Mass. 841; Feise v. Aguilar, 3 Taunt. 606.

(w) Lewis v. Rucker, 2 Burr. 1171; Clark v. Ocean Ins. Co. 16 Pick. 206; Wolcott v. Eagle Ins. Co. 4 Pick. 438.

1 Providence, etc. Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 89 N. Y. 559.

* A valuation in one policy has no influence in deter mining the value of the same thing, as it is insured by other insurers. (b)

If an insured owns only a certain proportion or share of the property insured, a general valuation will be held to be a valuation of that share, (c) unless otherwise stated or implied in the policy. (d) But if the valuation be of goods, all of which are included in the valuation, and a part only is put on board and at risk, the valuation applies to that part only pro rata. (e)1 The policy may provide for any of these cases; but, without such provision, a valuation of the whole subject-matter will be regarded as a valuation of the insured's whole interest in it, including the premium he pays. (f)

The valuation is often applied to a ship, and not unfrequently to the freight, or to the cargo; and sometimes to an insurance of profits under that name, although more frequently the profits are included in a valuation of the goods. (g) If freight be valued, the valuation is held as that of the freight of a full cargo; and where a part only is at risk, the valuation applies only pro rata. (h) If profits are valued, and the goods are lost, the English courts seem to require proof that there would have been

(x) Alsop v. Commercial Ins. Co. 1 Sumner, 473; Robinson v. Manuf. Ins. Co. 1 Met. 148; Irving v. Manning, 1 H. L. Cas. 304, 6 C. B. 419; Phenix Ins. Co. v. M'Loon, 100 Mass. 476.

(y) See supra.

(z) Gardner v. Col. Ins. Co. 2 Cranch, C. C. 650; Ocean Ins. Co. v. Fields, 2 Story, 77; Hersey v. Merrimack Co. Ins. Co. 7 Foster, 155; Protection Ins. Co. v. Hall, 16 B. Mon. 411; Catron v. Tenn. Ins. Co. 0 Humph. 186; Haigh v. De La Cour, 8 Camp. 819.

(a) See cases in note, supra.

(b) Higginson v. Dall. 13 Mass. 96.

(c) Feise v. Aguilar, 3 Taunt 406.

(d) Dumas v. Jones, 4 Mass. 647; Mayo v. Maine Ins. Co. 12 Mass. 259; Murray v. Columbian Ins. Co. 11 Johns. 302.

(e) Forbes v. Aspinall, 13 East, 323 Wolcott v. Eagle Ins. Co. 4 Pick. 429 Clark v. Ocean Ins. Co. 16 Pick. 295; Mutual Ins. Co. v. Munro, 7 Gray, 249.

(f) Brooks v. Oriental Ins. Co. 7 Pick. 269; Mayo v. Maine Ins. Co. 12 Mass. 269; Minturn v. Columbian Ins. Co. 10 Johns. 75.

(g) See cases supra, p. *362, note (g).

(h) Forbes v. Aspinall, 13 East,323; Wolcott v. Eagle Ins. Co. 4 Pick. 429.

1 See Denoon v. Home, etc Ass. Co. L. B. 7 C. P. 341.

some profit, had they arrived safely, and then the valuation comes in. (i) Our courts, however, hold, that the loss of goods carries necessarily a loss of profits, and the valuation of profits then takes effect, without any evidence that there would have been any profits. (j)