(f) Anderson v. Edie, 1795, 2 Park on Ins. (8th ed.) 915. In this case, Lord Kenyon said "It was singular that this question had never been directly decided before; that a creditor had certainly an interest in the life of his debtor, because the means by which he was to be satisfied might materially depend on it; and that, at all events, the death must, in all cases, in some degree, lessen the security." See comments on this case, in Ellis on Ins. p. 125. A creditor of a firm has been held to have an insurable interest in the life of one of the partners thereof, although the other partner may be entirely able to pay the debt, and the estate of the insured is perfectly solvent. Morrell v. Trenton Ins. Co. 10 Cash. 282. It seems that the purchaser of an expected devise from the expectant devisee, may insure the life of the testator. Cook v. field, 15 Q. B. 460. A trustee may insure for the benefit of the trust. Tidswell v. Angerstein, Peake, 151; Ward v. Ward, 2 Smale & G. 125, 23 Eng, L. & Eq. 442. If A, being indebted to B, die, and C agree to pay the debt, by instalments, in five years, B has an insurable interest in the life of C, for those five years. Yon Lindenau v. Desborough, 3 C. & P. 353. So, the grantee of an annuity for one or more lives, has an insurable interest in those lives. Holland v. Pelham, 1 Cromp. & J. 575. Where A furnished funds to B to enable him to go to California, and it was agreed that A should have one-half of all the profits which should arise from gold digging by B, it was held that A had an insurable interest in B's life, and the policy was to be treated as a valued one, and it was not necessary to show that B would have dug any gold or made any profit. Miller v. Eagle Life Ins. Co. 2 E. D. Smith, 268. See also Bevin v. Conn. Ins. Co. 23 Conn. 244; Loomis v. Eagle Ins. Co. 6 Gray, 396; Morrell v. Trenton Ins. Co. 10 Cush. 282; Mitchell v. Union Ins. Co. 45 Me. 104.

(g) Dwyer v. Edie, 2 Park, Ins. 914.

(h) Valton v. National Ass. Co. 22 Barb. 9, 20 N. Y. 32. See also Trenton Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 4 N. J. 576.

(i) American Ins. Co. v. Robertshaw, 26 Penn. State, 189.

In England, insurance on the life of any person, or on any other event, wherein the person for whose use, benefit, or on whose account such policy is made, has no interest, is forbidden by law, as are also all gaming or wagering contracts. (n) In that country the law is now well settled, that the contract of life insurance is not a contract of indemnity, and that although the insured must have an interest at the time the insurance is effected, in order to comply with the statute, yet there is no necessity of this interest continuing, and where a creditor insures the life of his debtor, he may recover the amount insured, although the debt is paid. (o)

(j) Reed v. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. Peake's Ad. Cas. 70; St. John v. American Ins. Co. 2 Duer, 429.

(k) Lord v. Dall, 12 Mass. 116.

(l) Loomis v. Eagle Ins. Co. 6 Gray, 396; Mitchell v. Union Ins. Co. 45 Me. 104. Contra, Halford v. Kymer, 10 B. & C. 724.

(ll) Hebdon v. West, 3 B. &. S. 578.

(m) Hoyt v. N. Y. Ins. Co. 3 Bosw. 440.

(n) 14 Geo. 3, c. 48. In Wainewright v. Bland, 1 Moody & R. 481, Lord Abinger, C. B., instructed the jury, that although the policy on its face appeared to have been obtained by the life-assured, if in fact another person, not interested in his life, found the funds of the premiums, and intended, when it was procured, to get the benefit of it by assignment or otherwise, it was the policy of that other person, and void, being an evasion of the statute. A doubt was expressed on this point by the court in banc, but no decision was given. 1 M. & W. 32. See also Shilling v. Accidental Death Ins. Co. 2H. &N. 42, 40 Eng. L. & Eq. 465.

(o) Dalby v. India Ass. Co. 15 C. B. 365,28 Eng. L. & Eq. 312; Law v. London Life Policy Co. 1 Kay & J. 223. These cases overrule Godsall v. Boldero, 9 East, 72, and other cases which followed it. See 18 London Jurist, 485 ; 19 id. 37; 39 London Law Mag. 202.

1 A policy on their joint lives, payable to the survivor, is not avoided by their divorce and a decree of alimony to the wife. Conn. Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. 457. See Baker v. Union Life Ins. Co. 43 N. Y. 283; Gambs v. Covenant Life Ins. Co. 50 Mo. 44.

2 AEtna Life Ins. Co. v. France, 94 U. S. 561, declared that in such a case it is immaterial what is the arrangement between the brother and sister for the payment of the premiums. See Goodwin v. Mass. Life Ins. Co. 73 N. Y. 480. But a brother has no such interest in a brother, Lewis v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 39 Conn. 100; nor a nephew in an uncle. Singleton v. St Louis Ins. Co. 66 Mo. 63.

3 Reserve Ins. Co. v. Kane, 81 Penn. St 154; Williams v. Wash. Life Ins. Co. 31 la. 541. In Guardian Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 80 Ill. 35, it was decided that a son has no insurable interest in his father, unless he has a reasonable expectation of pecuniary advantage from the continuance of his father's life.

In this country, wager contracts are forbidden entirely in some of our States, in others on particular subjects, and in others not at all. If, therefore, the English doctrine be assented to, that a contract of life insurance is not a contract of indemnity, it would follow, that in those States where wager contracts are not forbidden at all, or are not forbidden on the subject of insurance, no interest need be shown. (p)

If a man obtains insurance on his own life, as the "assured," it being declared that the policy is for the benefit of a third party, that party may maintain an action on the policy without proof of interest. (pp) 1

* Our American policies now frequently contain a clause, requiring a creditor, who is insured upon the life of his debtor, to transfer, on payment of a loss, an equal amount of the debt. (q)

A more difficult question of this kind arises thus. If the life of a debtor is insured by his creditor, and the debtor dies, and the insurers pay to the creditor that which is equal to the debt, or to a part of it, is this a payment either total or partial of the debt, of which the legal representatives of the debtor may take advantage, and to the extent of the payment resist the claim of the creditor on them? We should say, that whether the whole claim passed over by subrogation to the insurers or not, such payment would be no defence whatever to a claim against the representatives of the debtor, and there is authority to this effect. (r) Of