case ASSIEVEDO against cambridge if a ship insure be take by the enemy and  after a possession of nine day but before she be carry infra prsidia be retake  by a English man of war the property be not change but if it be find that the  plaintiff in the policy be not concern in point of interest he can recover  against the underwriter upon a special verdict the case in substance appear to  be this Assievedo have insure so much money upon a ship call the ruth for such  a voyage in which ship Assievedo be find by the verdict not to be at all  concern in point of interest it happen that this ship be take by the enemy and  keep in their possession for nine day and then before it be carry infra  prsidia videlicet a place of safety it be retake by a English man of war a it  appear upon the special verdict in this case that the man of war which retake  the ship bring her into the port of London and restore her to the owner upon  reasonable redemption and therefore it be say that the question in this case  can not have arise upon the change of property because the owner not abandon  the ship can only have come upon the insurer for the redemption but that the  policy be interest or no interest without benefit of savage the question be  upon the term and meaning of the wager per Lord Mansfield in the case of goss  v wither burr a the question be whether or no this be such a take as shall  enable the plaintiff to recover the sum insure against Cambridge dr Floyer for  the plaintiff argue that this be rather to be esteem a wager than a insurance  a hope purchase et sale and not a turning danger which in the book of the  civil law be look upon as a proper definition of a insurance that therefore  whatever act of parliament be make about insurance must be understand of  proper insurance and not insurance of the good of stranger that whether or no  this be such a take as will divest the property out of the owner be a question  proper between they and the retakers but that the question between Assievedo  and Cambridge be only whether the ship be take modern report this case be  compare to a man lie a wager that he shall not be rob in go to such a place he  be rob but take some along with he pursue the robber and recover what he lose  here though the money be recover yet the wager be lose so if the wager have be  that such person shall not be marry together they be marry and afterward  divorce prcontractus causan yet the wager be lose it be say further that  without this exposition Cambridge will have two chance videlicet that it be  not take or that it be retake but Assievedo will have but one videlicet the  take Grotius b Grotius de jure Belli et peace lib cap sect b lie this down as  a rule to please tribe ut be cepiss remember to come to know who ita to hold  off ut to retake spen probabilem alter to send away now in our case the ship  be for nine day together in the possession of the enemy by the law of Spain  and France a continuance in the possession of the enemy for twentyfour hour be  a alteration of the property and albericus pagan tell we that a pernoctation  with the enemy will by our old English law alter the property and Grotius  immediate after the place beforementioned say that recentiori jure a king of  Illyria inter Europos papulos introduce to see ut ankle captan to tax where  per horas twenty quatuor in potestate victim to be dr henchman for the  defendant argue that sure the law will not put a insurer non good fide or a  wagerer in a better condition than one that insure good fide and say that any  take shall enable a wagerer to recover but that no take but such as alter the  property shall enable a real good fide insurer to recover modern report this  question in the court of admiralty will not have bear a dispute for the law be  clear that modern report er p not length of time but the bring infra prcesidia  into a place of safety be that which divest the property and for that the case  of the eastindia company v sand in the late war be cite where the ship be take  by Dubart in the year off to Yarmouth carry to Northbergen then sell to a  afterward sell to b b send her to the Westindies afterward to France and in  the year to England where she be retake it be resolve that the property be not  alter the word of the judgement in this and the like case be very remarkable  in prcesenti perlinere be part of the sentence so that the sentence do not  give a new right but confirm a old one in the civil law alteration of property  be a thing of a odious nature and therefore the law even by a fiction prevent  it as in the law postliminium where in order to preserve property in the  person return jure right to return home the law esteem he never to have be a  captive that so to stay cive to stay svan good Lord Molin de Justitia in  disputation earlier times owner restiluenda quce captan Juerint ab inilitibus  who nuinerantur to receive pay Bello res per vim to seize for use when ad  locum iulum c Petrinus bellus part No de postliminii jure reversis Insupur to  know enemy captan non statin victim become soldier to say that thing so long  in the possession of the enemy the dawn become jura hoc non to say cum become  to be able that the property may be alter by the possession of a short time et  perhaps not alter diuturniori possession consulship deal mare cap a book of  great authority lie down the security of the place into which to lead captan  as that which cause the alteration of property otherwise after a proper reward  to the retakers earlier times c modern report albericus pagan in the place  quote by the advocate for the plaintiff have for his title these word rein non  become hostis ante colonizing infra prcesidia and his determination be  pursuant to his title and express against what the doctor quote Grotius lib  cap sect ece yes res quce infra prcesidia perductce not yet are though ab  enemy occupatce therefore right to return home non needy because owner not yet  mularunt ex a king of Illyria jure as for the quotation out of Grotius  recentiori jure c Grotius build there upon a mistake foundation for be quote  albericus pagan lib and there be no three book indeed in cap lib there be  something like it but Grotius quote there part of a argument without consider  the conclusion which be direct against his quotation perductionem entirely  desiderant in all respects say the book the court seem to be of opinion for  the defendant they think that the plaintiff be find by the verdict to have no  interest in the ship which he insure shall make no difference first because  they never will be more favourable to a insurer non good fide or wagerer than  to one that insure good fide second because to make a different interpretation  of this deed from what be common put upon policy of insurance will be to run  counter to the design of the party who have make use of the very same word  that be use in such policy nay who have express provide for this very case by  these word interest or no interest which word signify nothing at all unless  the same loss entitle to a recovery where the insurer have no interest and  where he have and that the property be not alter by the take they hold to be  very plain to be argue next term by commonlawyers a it do not appear from any  report that a second argument be ever hear in this case park inn but see now  the statute Geo c park on insurance ch and the statute Geo c park on inn ch  and Woodesons lecture vol two chosen a