vessel, valued at the said sum thereby insured; the maize to be shipped on board the barque "P." at and from B. to C. or F., for orders to a port in the United Kingdom, including lighterage risk, if any, to and from the vessel, and it was thereby agreed that in case of loss such loss should be payable to the orders of the said Messrs. G. & F., and should be paid in sterling at the counting-house of Messrs. B. S. and Co. in London, at the rate of 4 dollars 95 cents gold to the pound sterling. 3. The risks insured against by the said policy were those ordinarily covered by a marine insurance policy, and included perils of the seas and all other losses, perils, and misfortunes that should come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the said subject-matter of marine insurance, and the said policy included the usual suing and labouring clause. 4. The goods covered by the policy were shipped by Messrs. G. & F. by the said vessel, and at the time of shipment, and thence until and at the time of the assignment hereinafter mentioned, the said firm were interested in the said goods to the value or amount of all the moneys insured thereon, and the said policy was made for their benefit and on their account. 5. Messrs. G. & F. subsequently sold the said subject-matter of insurance to the plaintiff, and assigned the said policy to the plaintiff so as to pass the beneficial interest in the said policy to the plaintiff as the person entitled to the property thereby insured, and the plaintiff became and was then and thence, until and at the time of the loss hereinafter mentioned, interested in the said goods to the value and amount of all the moneys insured thereon. 6. The said vessel with the said goods on board sailed from B. on the insured voyage on day of 1877, and afterwards during the continuance of the said risk, and whilst the said policy was in full force and effect, and whilst the said goods were covered thereby, the said vessel in the course of the voyage was stranded near C. by perils insured against by the said policy, and a particular average loss under the said policy was caused by the said stranding. The said loss amounted to £200 and upwards. 7. The plaintiff also says that after the commencement and On a marine policy by assignee. On a marine policy during the continuance of the said risk, and whilst the said by assignee. policy was in full force and effect and the said goods covered thereby, a loss and misfortune occurred within the true intent and meaning of the said policy, and the plaintiff thereupon, by his factors, servants, and assigns in that behalf, did sue labour and travel in and about the defence, safeguard, and recovery of the said subject-matter of insurance, and necessarily incurred divers charges and expenses in so doing, amounting in the whole to £70, and the defendants became and are liable for the said charges and expenses to the plaintiff in respect of the moneys so insured by them as aforesaid. Defence. 8. The defendants have not paid the said sums of £200 and £70, or either of them, or any part of the same respectively. The plaintiff claims £330, with interest until payment. Statement of Defence. 1. The defendants deny the allegations in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of claim. 2. The defendants deny that the vessel was stranded as alleged in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim. 3. The defendants deny that there was any particular average loss or any loss under the said policy, and further deny that any particular average loss or any loss was caused by the stranding alleged in paragraph 6 of the statement of claim, i there was any such stranding. 4. The defendants deny that any loss or misfortune occurred within the true intent or meaning of the said policy, or that the plaintiff thereupon, by his factors, servants, or assigns in that behalf, did sue labour or travel in or about the defence, safeguard, or recovery of the subject-matter of insurance, or necessarily incurred divers or any charges or expenses in so doing, or that they became or are liable for any averages or expenses to the plaintiff in respect of any moneys insured by them, and they deny the several allegations in paragraph 7 of the statement of claim. 5. If the plaintiff should be found entitled to recover anything in respect of the matters alleged by him in the statement of claim, the defendants further say that they do not admit the amount of the plaintiff's several claims. Claim by Principal and Agent in the Alternative for Amount of Premiums of Insurance, or for Amount of Notes given for the same, and on an Account stated (a). 1. The plaintiffs Messrs. R. & Co. were and are merchants Alternative carrying on business in London and Liverpool, and were and claim by principal are the agents in this country of the plaintiffs the M. Insurance and agent Co., of New York, who carry on the business of marine in- for presurers in New York and other places in the United States of insurance, America. 2. The defendant is a merchant or contractor, who formerly carried on business in America, and now carries on business in the City of London. 3. In the years 1870 and 1871, the defendant and the said company entered into certain contracts of insurance contained in certain policies and extensions indorsed upon the same, under which, in consideration of certain premiums which the defendant promised to pay to the said company, the said company undertook to insure the defendant to the extent set forth respectively in the said policies and extensions. Declarations of interest to a considerable amount were made from time to time under the said policies and extensions. 4. Divers sums became and were due and payable from the defendant to the said company for and in respect of the premiums on so much of the said policies and extensions as were used by the defendant by means of the said declarations of interest. 5. Particulars of the said sums and moneys appear by the indorsement on the writ herein. 6. To meet the sums and moneys so due from the defendant to the said company the defendant, by A. R., his agent duly authorised in that behalf by a power of attorney dated the (a) This mode of joining plaintiffs would have been inadmissible before the Judicature Acts; but now by Order XVI. r. 1, “All persons may be joined as plaintiffs in whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative. And judgment may be given for such one or more of the plaintiffs as may be found to be entitled to relief, for such relief as he or they may be entitled to without any amendment, &c." See the effect of this rule discussed ante, pages 3 and 4. miums of &c. Alternative 13th day of May, 1870, made the promissory notes mentioned in the indorsement on the writ in favour of the said company or order payable respectively six months and eight months after date. claim by principal and agent for premiums of insurance, &c. 7. The said notes were duly indorsed by the said company to the plaintiffs Messrs R. & Co. for collection who duly presented the same after the same had respectively become payable, and demanded payment thereof, but the defendant has not paid the same, and the amount of the said notes and interest, and notarial expenses in respect of the same, as appears by the indorsement on the writ, is still due and unpaid to Messrs. R. & Co. 8. In the alternative, the plaintiffs the said company allege that the defendant was and is indebted to the plaintiffs the said company, in respect of the said premiums and other matters hereinbefore set forth, to the amount stated in the particulars indorsed upon the writ. 9. In the alternative the said company further allege that in or about the year 1873, an account was duly stated by and between the said company and the defendant, in respect of which the defendant became and still is indebted to the said company in the amount of 4,670-97 dollars, equivalent in English money to £1050 128. The plaintiffs claim : (1.) That the plaintiffs R. & Co. are entitled for and in (3.) Such other relief as to the Court shall seem just. Insurance-Life Policies (a). Action on a Life Insurance effected by a Creditor on the Life of his Debtor. 1. The plaintiff is a solicitor practising at Kingston in Surrey. The defendants are a life insurance company, carrying on business in Lombard Street, in the City of London. Life insurance more than a contract of indem nity. Insurer must have pecuniary interest at the time of contract. (a) A contract of life insurance differs from a contract of marine insurance in this, that it is not a contract of indemnity merely like the latter, but an undertaking by the insurers to pay a sum certain upon the death of a given life. It is necessary, however, that the insurer should have an interest in the life insured, at the time of entering into the insurance (see the 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, ss. 1, 2, by which it is also provided that the name of the person interested, or for whose use or benefit or on whose account the policy is made, shall be inserted in it), though it is not necessary that this interest should continue till the death of the person insured. (See Dalby v. India, &c., Life Assurance Co., 15 C. B. 365; L. J. 24 C. P. 2; and 2 Smith's Leading Cases, 7th ed. 271, and notes thereto.) As to what constitutes an insurable interest, it has been held that a pecuniary interest is meant, and therefore an insurance by a father in his own name on the life of his son, he having no pecuniary interest in it, is void. (Halford v. Kymer, 10 B. & C. 724.) But everyone has an interest in his own life, and if he insures it his executor is not bound amounts to show any interest beyond this (Wainewright v. Bland, 1 M. & Rob. to an 481); so a wife may insure her husband's life (Reed v. Royal Exchange insurable Assurance Co., Peake Add. Ca. 70); and now by the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 93, s. 10, a married woman may effect a policy of insurance upon her own life or the life of her husband for her separate use, and the same and all benefit thereto shall enure to her accordingly. So a creditor may insure his debtor's life. (Anderson v. Edie, Park Ins. 8th ed. 914.) As in the case of marine policies so in the case of life policies, the assured can only recover the amount of his insurable interest in the life of the person insured; and if he chances to have it covered by several policies, he can only recover the amount on one or more policies. (Hebdon v. West, 3 B. & S. 579; L. J. 32 Q. B. 85.) What interest. Life policies may be assigned, and by the 30 & 31 Vict. c. 144, the Assignassignee may sue in his own name upon giving written notice to the ment of life assurance company liable under the policy of such assignment. An policies. assignee of a life policy need not show any interest in the life of the person insured, other than the original interest of his assignor at the time of the entering into the policy. (Ashley v. Ashley, 3 Sim. 149.) The assured usually subscribes a declaration answering facts inquired of The effect by the insurers, and it is made a condition that if any be untruly of false answered, the policy is to be void. In such a case the policy is void or frauduthough there is no intentional untruth (Macdonald v. Law, §c., Insurance lent misreCo., L. R. 9 Q. B. 328; and it makes no matter though the misstatement presentais found by the jury to be immaterial, for as the basis of the contract is tion by the the truth of the representation, its materiality is not in question, and ought assured. not to be left to the jury. (Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. L. C. 484; Cazenove v. British Equitable Assurance Co., 6 Č. B. N. S. 437; L. J. 28 C. P. 259.) But mere representations and statements which turn out untrue will not avoid a life policy, unless the policy purport to be based upon their truth, or there be fraud. (Wheelton v. Hardisty, 8 E. & B. 232; L. J. 26 Q. B. 265.) There is generally a clause in all life policies avoiding the policy if C C |