§ 2122. Insured may make any one the beneficiary. § 2123. Construction of words and phrases in application or policy as to health. § 2124. As to habits. "Family physician "—"Usual medical attendant." § 2125. § 2126. Representations as to age. § 2133. Death while in military service "War and rebellion § 2138. Assignment of policy - Change of beneficiaries. § 2139. To person having no interest. § 2121. Who may Insure. In the case of insurance on life, the danger of permitting mere wagers on the continuance of life, and the permitting of a legal means to obtain a large sum of money upon the commission of a great crime, has established the rule in nearly all the states that one person shall not be permitted to benefit as the party insuring the life of another in the continuance of whose life he has no interest at all. Upon this reason alone it is believed the objection to non-interest policies of life insurance is placed by the courts. "As the premium is intended to be a precise equivalent for the risk taken, it would seem that the contract is a just and equitable one, whether any interest in the life exists or not; and that the only essential inquiry is, whether the object 1 of the contract is such as to obviate the objections to a mere wager upon the chances of human life." And this interest, it is laid down by the text-writers, and also in many adjudged cases, must be a pecuniary one, while on the other hand there are cases holding that mere relationship will be sufficient. The claim, however, need not be a strictly legal claim; an equitable claim will suffice. In a late case the rule is laid down, that to support a contract of insurance on the life of one person in favor of another, there must be a reasonable ground, founded in the relations of the parties, either pecuniary or of blood or affinity, to expect some relief or advantage from the continuance 1 Hoar, J., in Forbes v. Ins. Co., 15 Gray, 254; 77 Am. Dec. 360; Stevens v. Warren, 101 Mass. 564; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Hazard, 41 Ind. 116; 13 Am. Rep. 313; Mo. Valley Ins. Co. v. Sturges, 18 Kan. 93; 26 Am. Rep. 761; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Sefton, 53 Ind. 380; Brockway v. Ins. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 249; Fox v. Ins. Co., 4 Big. L. & Acc. Ins. Cas. 458; Mowry v. Home Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 346; Mut. Ben. Ins. Co. v. Hoyt, 46 Mich. 473. In Loomis v. Eagle etc. Ins. Co., 6 Gray, 398, Shaw, C. J., says: "All, therefore, which it seems necessary to show, in order to take the case out of the objection of being a wager policy, is, that the insured has some interest in the life of the cestui que vie; that his temporal affairs, his just hopes, and wellgrounded expectations of support, of patronage, and advantage in life will be impaired; so that the real purpose is not a wager, but to secure such advantages, supposed to depend upon the life of another; such, we suppose, would be sufficient to prevent it from being regarded as a mere wager. What ever may be the nature of such interest, and whatever the amount insured, it can work no injury to the insurers, because the premium is proportioned to the amount; and whether the insurance be to a large or small amount, the premium is computed to be a precise equivalent for the risk taken. Perhaps it would be difficult to lay down any general rule as to the nature. and amount of interest which the assured must have. One thing may be taken as settled: that every man has an interest in his own life to any amount at which he chooses to value it, and may insure it accordingly. We cannot doubt that a parent has an interest in the life of a child, and, vice versa, a child in the life of a parent; not merely on the ground of a provision of law that parents and grandparents, children and grandchildren, are bound to support their lineal kindred when they stand in need of relief, but upon considerations of strong morals and the force of natural affection between near kindred, operating often more efficaciously than those of positive law": Ruse v. Ins. Co., 23 N. Y. 516; Charter Oak Ins. Co. v. Brant, 47 Mo. 419; 4 Am. Rep. 328. But see Trenton etc. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 24 N. J. L. 576. 2 Bliss on Insurance, sec. 10; Angell on Insurance, secs. 298, 299; May on Insurance, sec. 104; Lewis v. Ins. Co., 39 Conn. 104; Singleton v. Ins. Co., 66 Mo. 63; 27 Am. Rep. 321; Charter Oak Ins. Co. v. Brant, 47 Mo. 419; 4 Am. Rep. 328. 3 Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 619; Grattan v. Ins. Co., 15 Hun, 76; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775. Trenton Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 24 N. J. L. 586; Miller v. Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 292; Hoyt v. Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 446. of the life of the insured. But it is only necessary that the interest should exist at the time of the policy being taken out or the contract being made; the fact that it afterwards ceases is not material.2 Where there is, when the contract is made, an adequate insurable interest to support the policy, the insurer must pay the full amount of insurance according to the contract, without reference to the subsequent diminution or cessation of the insurable interest.3 A creditor has an insurable interest in the life of his debtor, and this is so where the debt is one not enforceable; because the debtor, for example, is an infant,5 or the debt is barred by limitation," provided the debt be a legal one. But where the debt is very small, and the insurance taken out very large in amount, the courts will regard the transaction as nothing more than a wager, and the creditor will not be allowed to recover beyond the amount of his debt, "The life of a debtor may be insured in two ways: the debtor may insure to an amount beyond the debt for the benefit of his creditor, and payable in case of loss to the creditor, in trust, first to pay the debt, and then to pay the balance to such parties as the debtor may designate; or the creditor may insure the United Brethren Mut. Aid Soc. v. McDonald, 122 Pa. St. 324; 9 Am. St. Rep. 111. Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. 457; Dalby v. Ins. Co., 15 Com. B. 365; Trenton etc. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 24 N. J. L. 576; Hoyt v. Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 446; Miller v. Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 294; Mowry v. Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 354; St. John v. Ins. Co., 13 N. Y. 31; 64 Am. Dec. 529; Olmstead v. Keyes, 85 N. Y. 598; Grattan v. Ins. Co., 15 Hun, 76; Sides v. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 650; McKee v. Ins. Co., 28 Mo. 383; 75 Am. Dec. 129. Sides v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 650. Rawls v. Am. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 27 N. Y. 282; 84 Am. Dec. 280; Dalby v. India and London Life Ins. Co., 15 Com. B. 385; Brockway v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 9 Fed. Rep. 249; Morrell v. Trenton Mutual Life and Fire Ins. Co., 10 Cush. 282; 59 Am. Dec. 92; American Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Robertshaw, 26 Pa. St. 189; McKenty v. Ins. Co., 3 Dill. 448; Succession of Hearing, 26 La. Ann. 326; or the debtor's wife: Henson v. Blackwell, 4 Hare, 434. May on Insurance, sec. 108. 6 Rawls v. Ins. Co., 27 N. Y. 282; 84 Am. Dec. 280; Mowry v. Ins. Co., 9 R. I. 346. life of his debtor to the amount of the debt payable to himself in case of loss." An annuitant has an insurable interest in the life on which his annuity depends.2 An assignee in bankruptcy has no interest in the life of the bankrupt, especially after the latter's discharge.3 Joint obligors in a bond have an insurable interest in each others' lives. So an insurer has such an interest in the life he insures as to give him a right to reinsure it.5 A master who has the right to the services of a servant for a term has an insurable interest in his life. So has a servant in the life of a master; or a manager in the life of an actor engaged by him. A partner who puts his money into a business has an insurable interest in the life of a partner who puts in as his capital his skill. So a partner has an insurable interest in the life of his copartner, who, at the time of taking out the policy of insurance, is in default in the payment of his promised proportion of the capital of the concern.10 A person who advances money to another for the prosecution of an enterprise in the profits of which both are to share has an interest in the life of the other." A surety has an insurable interest in the life of his principal; 12 a tenant in the life of one whose estate is only a life estate." A child has an insurable interest in the life of a parent;14 1 May on Insurance, sec. 109. 2 Reynolds on Insurance, sec. 62; Gottlieb v. Cranch, 4 De Gex, M. & G. 446. 3 In re McKinney, 15 Fed. Rep. 535. Branford v. Saunders, 25 Week. Rep. 650. 5 Dalby v. Ins. Co., 15 Com. B. 385. 6 Miller v. Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 268; Summers v. Trust Co., 13 La. Ann. 504; Woodfin v. Ins. Co., 6 Jones, 558. May on Insurance, sec. 109; citing Hebdon v. West, 3 Best & S. 578. Bliss on Life Insurance, sec. 14. 9 Valton v. Ins. Soc., 22 Barb. 9; affirmed 20 N. Y. 32; Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Luchs, 108 U. S. 498. 10 Conn. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Luchs, 108 U. S. 498. 11 Bevin v. Ins. Co., 23 Conn. 244; Morrell v. Ins. Co., 10 Cush. 282; 59 Am. Dec. 92; Trenton Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 24 N. J. L. 576; Hoyt v. Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 440; Miller v. Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 268. 12 Lea v. Hinton, 5 De Gex, M. & G. 823. And he may recover the amount of the policy, even though no breach of the bond ever occurred: Scott v. Dickson, 108 Pa. St. 6; 56 Am. Rep. 192. 13 Sides v. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 650. 14 Reserve Ins. Co. v. Kane, 81 Pa. St. 154; 22 Am. Rep. 741; Warnock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775. Contra, Guardian a mother in the life of a son; the father in the life of a minor son of sufficient age to render services to him.2 But it has been held that the rule as to father and son is different "where both parties are of mature age, and live apart in independent pecuniary circumstances, and mutually entirely independent of each other, and having no business relations with each other."3 A husband has an insurable interest in the life of his wife; a sister in the life of a brother. A son-in-law has no insurable interest in the life of his mother-in-law; nor a step-son in the life of his step-father or his father's father." The wife has an insurable interest in the life of her husband, even if they are subsequently divorced; and a woman in the life of a 9 Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 80 Ill. 35; 22 Am. Rep. 180. A daughter has not an insurable interest in the life of her mother: Continental Ins. Co. v. Volger, 89 Ind. 572; 46 Am. Rep. 185. Reef v. Ins. Co., 17 Îns. Chron. 3. Loomis. Ins. Co., 6 Gray, 396; Mitchell v. Ins. Co., 45 Me. 104; 71 Am. Dec. 529; Hoyt v. Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. 440; Williams v. Ins. Co., 31 Iowa, 541; Miller v. Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith, 268; Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Kane, 81 Pa. St. 154; 22 Am. Rep. 741; Grattan v. Ins. Co., 15 Hun, 74. Rombach v. Ins. Co., 16 Rep. 780; 12 Ins. Law J. 268; 35 La. Ann. 233; 48 Am. Rep. 239. 1 United Brethren Soc. v. McDonald, 122 Pa. St. 324; 9 Am. St. Rep. 111; Gilbert v. Moose, 13 Ins. Law. J. 297; 41 Leg. Int. 75. Barker v. Ins. Co., 43 N. Y. 283; St. John v. Ins. Co., 2 Duer, 419; Gambs v. Ins. Co., 50 Mo. 44; Thompson v. Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 674; Equitable Ins. Co. v. Paterson, 41 Ga. 338; 5 Am. Rep. 535; McKee v. Ins. Co., 28 Mo. 383; 75 Am. Dec. 129; Hola 6 4 bird v. Ins. Co., 2 Dill. 166; Conn. McKee v. Ins. Co., 28 Mo. 383; 75 |