Two questions arise upon that policy: 1st--why, if the property were _bona fide_ neutral (the cargo itself was also insured in London) the war clause should be inserted?
and, 2nd--why Davidson should make the policy payable to himself?
If he advanced this freight money on the credit of the London house, he had no insurable interest in it; and if the lumber really belonged to the London house, and was going to their partners or agents at the port of delivery, why should Davidson pay the freight in advance at all?
And if Snyder purchased the lumber of Davidson, why should Snyder not have made the advance for his principal instead of Davidson?
The conclusion would seem to be, that Davidson was shipping this lumber on his own account to agents, in whose hands he had no funds or credit, and as the lumber might not be sold readily, the ship could not be paid her freight unless it were paid in advance?
Further: the ship had a contingent destination.
She was either to go to Monte Video or Buenos Ayres, as the consignees might find most advantageous.

This looks very much like hunting for a market.

But further still.

Although Davidson prepared a formal letter of consignment to Zimmerman, Faris, and Co., to accompany the consular certificate, he at the same time writes another letter, in which he says, "The cargo of John S.Parks I shall have certified to by the British Consul as the property of British subjects.

You will find it a very good cargo, and should command the highest prices." How is Davidson interested in the price which this cargo will bring, if it belongs, as pretended, to the house in London?
And if Davidson sold to Snyder, and Snyder was the agent of the house in London, Davidson should have still less concern with it.