332? OC?rOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Oourt. 209 U.S. of the language of the reinsurance compact. The term "m- insurance" has a well-known meaning. That kind of a con- tract has been in force in the commercial world for a long number of years, ?nd it is entirely different from what is termed "double insurance," i..e., aninsurance of the same in- terest. The contract is one of indemnity to the person or cor- poration reinsured and it binds the reinsurer'to pay to the reinsured the whole loss sustained in respect to the subject of the insurance to the extent to which he is reinsured. It is not necessary that the reinsurod should first pay the loss to the party?first insured before proceeding against the reinsurer upon his contract. The liability of the latter is not affected by the insolvency of the insured or by its inability to fulfill its own contract with the original insured. The claim of the reinsured rests upon its liability to pay its loss to the original insured and is not based upon the greater or less ability to l?y by the reinsured. If the reinsured commenced his action against the reinsurer before he had himseft paid the loss the rcinsured took upon himself the burden of making out his claim with the same precision that the first insured would be required to do in an action against him. But there is no authority for saying that he must pay the loss before enforei?g his claim ag?nst, the reinsurer.. These propositions are adverted to and enforced in Hone &c. v. The Mutual Safety Insurance Company, 1 Sandf. Superior Co urt Reports, 137, where the authorities upon the subject are gathered and reviewed at some length. The case N.Y. 235. See also Blackstone v. Allemannia Fire Insu?an? Company, 56 N. Y. 104. The same doctrine is held in Con- solida?d Real Esta? &c. v. Cashow, 4 ! Maryland, 59. Counsel for plaintiff in error frankly concedes that the legal propositions above stated a?e correct, and unless there is something in the special provisions of this reinsurance contract which changes the ordinary rule on that subject the judgment herein must be affirmed. Reference is made to the eleventh subdivision of the policy in question. Under the language of
�
