It may be enough to say on this point, that it must be definite and unequivocal; and it must amount to an absolute abandonment and transfer to the insurers, of all interest and property in the subject-matter remaining in the insured. (m) It should state why the abandonment is made, and the cause so stated should be a peril within the policy. (n) The word "abandon" should be used, (o) but may not be necessary; nor is it strictly necessary that it be in writing, (p) though it usually is and always should be. And the demand of a total loss may itself be an abandonment, when the terms of the demand and the circumstances of the case make this the plain and certain meaning of the demand. (q)

The insured may abandon the ship when the voyage is broken up, and the ship taken from the master's control, by a peril insured * against. (r) But abandonment is not justi fied at once and necessarily, by any loss, not even wreck, or foundering, or capture, if circumstances render recovery probable; for then it is the duty of the master to use all means of recovery; and until they are used and fail, the right to abandon does not exist. (s)

(k) Abbott v. Sebor, 8 Johns. Cas. 89; Loomis v. Shaw, 2 id. 86; Henrickson v. Margetson, 2 East, 649, note.

(l) New York Int. Co. v. Robinson, 1 Johns. 616.

(m) Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 6 Pet 604; Fuller v. M'Call, 1 Yeates, 464.

(n) This rule is so stated in several cases. Hazard v. New England Ins. Co. 1 Sumner, 218; Pierce v. Ocean Ins. Co. 18 Pick. 83; Bullard v. Roger Williams Ins. Co. 1 Curtis, C. C. 162; McConochie v. Sun Ins. Co. 3 Bosw. 99. But see Macy v. Whaling Ins. Co. 9 Met. 864; Heebner v. Eagle Ins. Co. 10 Gray, 181; Thwing v. Washington Int. Co. id. 443; Perkins v. Augusta Ins. Co. id. 812.

(o) Parmeter v. Todhunter, 1 Camp. 541.

(p) See Read v. Bonham, 3 Brod. & B. 147; Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 5 Pet. 622; Crousillat v. Ball, 3 Yeates, 878; Parmeter v. Todhonter, 1 Camp. 641.

(q) See Cassedy v. Louisiana State Ins. Co. 18 Mart. La. 421; Patapsco Ins. Co. v. Southgate, 6 Pet 604; Parmeter v. Todhonter, 1 Camp. 541; Thwing v. Washington Ins. Co. 10 Gray, 443; Watson v. Ins. Co. of N. A. 1 Binn. 47; Martin v. Crokatt, 14 East, 466; Murray v. Hatch, 6 Mass. 478; Pierce v. Ocean Ins. Co. 18 Pick. 98.

(r) See Peele v. Merchants Ins. Co. 8 Mason, 66; McConochie v. Sun Ins. Co. 8 Bosw. 99.

(s) Bosley v. Chesapeake Ins. Co. 8 Gill & J. 450; Wood v. Lincoln Ins. Co. 6 Mass. 479; Patrick v. Commercial Ins.

It is an important rule, that, as soon as the insured receives trustworthy intelligence justifying his abandonment, he cannot delay, but must abandon at once, or he will be held to have waived his right to abandon and to have lost that right. (t) l

The reasons for this rule are, that the insured has no right to delay until he can ascertain whether it is for his interest to abandon, and the insurers have a right to be enabled to make at once the utmost advantage of all that abandonment would transfer to them.

But abandonment should not be made on mere conjecture or possibility, nor on general rumor and belief, unless circumstances made this extremely probable; nor on actual information not worthy of credit. (u) And in such cases the insured may wait a reasonable time for authentic information. (v)

Where there is actual total loss, as there need be no abandonment, delay in making it has no effect.