1. [After narrating facts above summarized, his Lordship proceeded.] The first point which has been seriously agitated before me is whether the plaintiff had an insurable interest in these goods. It was urged by Mr Shelat for the defendants that the plaintiff was merely an agent having no insurable interest in these goods. His employment was merely for the purpose of handling these goods with a view to ship them in a country craft, take out an insurance policy against them and forward the same to his principals Ramdas Vasanji and Ranchhoddas Moolji. Mr. Hathi for the plaintiff, on the other hand urged that the plaintiff was not merely an agent handling the goods in the manner suggested by the defendants. He was a commission agent doing the work of shipping and forwarding agent. He was a bailee or in any event an agent who was instructed and authorised by Eamdas Vasanji and Banchhoddas Moolji to effect the insurance of these goods in his name, that he had in any event an insurable interest in these goods, if no more, at least to the extent of the freight charges which he had paid in connection with the goods the insurance premia which he had paid in effecting insurance thereof and the commission which he earned in the execution of the commission agency. Having got that interest, it was urged by Mr. Hathi for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain this suit against the defendants, the only liability of his being after recovery of the same from the defendants to hand over to his principals Bamdas Vasanji and Banchhoddas Moolji the balance of the monies so recovered after deducting the monies which they, the principals, owed to him in connection with the work which he had done for them as their commission agent.

2. Mr. Shelat drew my attention to certain passages from Halsburys Laws of England, Hailsham Edn. Vol. XVIII, in support of his contentions. He drew my attention to a passage at p. 218, para. 293, as under :

"In particular a person is interested in a marine adventure when he stands in any legal or equitable relation to the adventure or to any insurable property at risk therein in consequence of which he may benefit by the safety or due arrival of insurable property, or may be prejudiced by its loss or by damage thereto or by the detention thereof, or may incur liability in respect thereof."

Again a passage in para. 294, at the same page :

"The assured, in order to recover under a policy, must be interested in the subject-matter, insured at the time of the loss....."

He drew my attention to another passage at p. 390, para. 562 :

"Where there is a general averment of interest in the entire subject matter insured, the plaintiff who proves an interest in part may recover pro tanto."

He also drew my attention to a passage from Porters Law of Insurance, 8th Edn. (p. 59) :

"Agent insuring consignee.--A person insuring as agent for another cannot recover as a principal on the policy."

He also relied upon the observations of Willes J. in Seagrave v. Union Marine Insurance Co., (1866) L. R. 1 C. P. 305 : (35 L. J. C. P. 172) (p. 320) :

"We are not aware that it has ever been held that a mere agent, without possession or lieu, has an insurable interest to the extent of the value of the goods simply because his name appears in the bill of lading instead of that of his principal ; and the general rule is clear, that, to constitute interest insurable against a peril, it must be an interest such that the peril would by its proximate effect cause damage to the assured."

Relying upon these authorities Mr. Shelat submitted that on the facts of this case as established on the evidence tendered before me the plaintiff had no insurable interest in the goods the subject-matter of the suit policy.

3. Mr. Hathi, on the other hand, drew my attention to other passages from Halsburys Laws of England, Hailsham Edition, Vol. XVIII, particularly, the passage occurring at p. 208, para. 277:

"From the introductory clause of Ll