On a life policy effected by a creditor on the life of his debtor.

When the assured commits suicide.

2. The defendants, by a policy of insurance bearing date the day of, 1870, made on the life of one A. B., after reciting, among other things, that the plaintiff had paid to the defendants the sum of £ as a consideration for the said insurance on the life of the said A. B. for one year from the date of the said policy, and had agreed to pay a like sum on the day of in each succeeding year during the life of the said A. B., agreed that if the said A. B. should die during the said year or during any succeeding year for which such payment should be made as aforesaid, the plaintiff should be paid out of the capital stock and funds of the said company, within three calendar months after proof, satisfactory to the defendants, of the death of the said A. B. should have been made to the defendants, the sum of £1000, together with such further sums as might, under the regulations of the defendants, have been from time to time appropriated as a bonus or addition to the said policy.

on the

day

3. The plaintiff paid the said sum of £of in each year succeeding the date of the said policy until the year 1877, in which year the said A. B. died, to wit, on the 1st of February, and during the currency of the year commencing the day of, 1876, and while the said policy remained in full force.

4. The said A. B. was at the time of the making of the said policy indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £1000, and the plaintiff had an insurable interest to that amount on the life of the said A. B. at the date and time of the making thereof.

5. The plaintiff, on the 2nd of February, 1877, duly notified to the defendants the death of the said A. B., and subsequently, to wit, on the 10th of February, sent to them a certificate of the burial of the said A. B., which was accepted by the defendants as satisfactory proof of the death of the said A. B.

6. All conditions were performed, and all things happened, and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to a

the person whose life is insured "commits suicide," or "dies by his own hand; " and this clause has been construed to include all voluntary self-destruction, though not felonious. Therefore, where, as often happens, a man whose life is insured (there being a clause of the kind in the policy), commits suicide in a fit of insanity, his representatives, or those who hold the policy, cannot recover on it. (Clift v. Schwabe, 3 C. B. 437; Dormay v. Borrodaile, 5 C. B. 380; but see Smith's Mercantile Law, 9th ed. 404-5.)

policy

performance by the defendants of their said agreement, and to On a life be paid the said sum of £1000 and the bonuses or additions, if effected by any, accrued since the making of the said policy.

7. Yet the defendants have not paid the said sum of £1000 and bonuses, if any, or any part of the said sum or bonuses. The plaintiff claims £1100.

Action by Assignee of Life Policy.

1. The plaintiff is a monetary scrivener, carrying on business in St. Swithin's Lane, in the City of London. The defendants are an insurance company.

2. By a policy of life insurance bearing date the 8th day of August, 1868, made between the defendants of the one part and one G. H., now deceased, of the other part on the life of the said G. H., after reciting that the said G. H. was desirous to effect an insurance with the defendants on his life for the term of his whole life in the sum of £1000, and that the said G. H. had subscribed and delivered into the office of the defendants a proposal and declaration setting forth, among other things, the present and general state of his health, and had paid the sum of £— to the defendants as the premium for such assurance from the 8th day of August, 1868, to the 8th day of August, 1869; it was agreed by the defendants that if the said G. H. should die at any time within the said period, the capital stock and funds of the said company should be subject and liable to pay to the executors, administrators, or assigns of the said G. H., at the expiration of three calendar months after proof satisfactory to the court of directors of the defendants should have been made of the death of the said G. H., the said sum of £1000, together with such further sum or sums as might under the defendants' regulations have been from time to time appropriated as a bonus or addition to the said policy; and the defendants further agreed that the said policy might be continued in force during the whole life of the said G. H. on payment to the defendants, on or before 8th of August, 1869, of the sum of £, and the like sum annually thereafter on or before the 8th of August in each year.

3. On the 12th of August, 1868, the said G. H., by writing under his hand, duly assigned the said policy to the plaintiff,

a creditor on the life of his debtor.

On a life policy by

an as

signee.

On a life

policy by an

assignee.

and on the 14th of August a written notice of the date and purport of the said assignment was given by the plaintiff to the defendants at their said place of business.

4. The plaintiff duly paid the said premium of £ on the 8th of August, 1869, and each succeeding year up to the 8th of August, 1877.

5. The said G. H. died on the 4th of March, 1877, and while the said policy was subsisting and in full force and effect, and proof satisfactory to the defendants was given of the death of the said G. H. on or about the 12th of March aforesaid.

6. All conditions were performed, and all things were done, and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to a performance by the defendants of their said agreement, and to be paid the said £1000 and the bonuses, if any, yet the defendants have not paid the same or any part thereof. The plaintiff claims £1200.

Claim on

a fire

policy.

Fire policy a contract of indemnity.

The insurable interest.

Effect of alteration of property.

As to loss by negligence of insured.

Insurance-Fire Policies (a).

Action on a Fire Policy for a Total Loss and for Trespass. 1. The plaintiff is a grocer carrying on business at —, in the city of B. The defendants are a fire and life assurance

(a) A fire policy is, like a marine policy, a contract of indemnity, and the assured can only recover the actual loss or damage sustained according to the quality and value of the goods at the time of the fire. (Chapman v. Pole, 22 L. T. N. S. 306); and it is necessary to show an interest in the subject insured, at the time both of insuring and of the fire. (Lynch v. Dalzell, 4 Bro. P. C. 431; Saddlers' Co. v. Badcock, 2 Atk. 554.) Warehousemen and wharfingers may insure their customers' goods in their custody. (Waters v. Monarch Assurance Co., 5 E. & B. 870; L. J. 25 Q. B. 102.) A carrier may insure the goods in his custody, and he may recover the whole value of the goods lost by fire, although the owner of the goods may be disabled from recovering from the carrier by reason of the value not being declared under the Carriers Act. (London & North-Western Railway Co. v. Glyn, 1 E. & E. 652; L. J. 28 Q. B. 188; Ebsworth v. Alliance Marine Insurance Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 596.)

The property intended to be insured must be described in the policy, and there is generally a condition against any alteration in the premises after the making of the policy; and when this is the case any material alterstion will avoid the policy. But where there is no condition of the kind a subsequent change, as by setting up a more hazardous trade in them, if without fraud, will not destroy the policy. (Pim v. Keid, 6 M. & Gr. 1.) The policy covers a loss by fire owing to the negligence of the assured himself, if there be no fraud. (Shaw v. Robberds, 6 Ad. & E. 75.)

Unlike a life or marine policy, a fire policy was not assignable except

company, incorporated by Act of Parliament, and carrying on Claim on business at

in the city of

2. The plaintiff, by a policy of assurance, No. -, bearing date duly effected an insurance against fire with the defendants' company on his stock and utensils in trade and fixtures on the said premises for the total sum of £5000. The following are the particulars :

a fire policy.

£5000

3. The insurance was effected on the terms and conditions in the said policy contained, and it was thereby provided that the same should continue in force until the 25th day of December, 1878.

4. On the 29th day of December, 1877, while the said policy was in full force, a fire broke out on the aforesaid premises and injured or destroyed a large portion of the said stock and utensils in trade and of the said fixtures.

5. The plaintiff at the time of the making of the said policy, and thence until the happening of the said fire, was interested in the said goods and things so insured as aforesaid to the amount for which the same were respectively insured on the said policy.

6. The loss to the plaintiff by reason of the aforesaid fire is a loss by fire within the meaning of the said policy, and all things have happened and all times elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to be paid by the defendants the sums insured on the said policy, but the defendants have not paid the same or any part thereof.

7. By a provision in that behalf contained in the said policy the defendants were authorised to enter into the said premises after the occurrence of the aforesaid loss by fire, and hold possession of the same and the contents thereof for a reasonable time for all reasonable purposes relating to or in connection with the said insurance, and accordingly the plaintiff permitted

with the consent of the insurer (3 Kent Com. 375); but as it is a chose in action, probably the general words of the 25th clause, 6th subsection, of the Judicature Act, 1873, alter this.

Claim on a fire policy,

and for trespass.

Defence.

Noncompliance with

the defendants to enter into and take possession of the said premises and the contents thereof.

8. After so entering and taking possession the defendants wrongfully continued in possession for a long and unreasonable time, and wrongfully prevented the plaintiff from getting possession of the said premises and the contents thereof after a reasonable and sufficient time had elapsed for all purposes relating to or connected with the said insurance.

9. By reason of the aforesaid trespasses and wrongful acts of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered great injury and damage through not being permitted to take proper steps to prevent the goods and things that remained after the fire from being spoilt and damaged by damp and by being prevented from repairing the damage done by the fire to the said premises and the contents thereof, so as to enable himself to recommence his business without unnecessary delay, and by being kept out of possession of the said premises and the said goods and things. The plaintiff claims :

(1) The £5000 under the said policy.

(2) £500 damages for the wrongful acts and trespasses committed by the defendants.

Statement of Defence.

1. The defendants do not admit the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the statement of claim.

2. The defendants do not admit that a fire broke out on the said premises, or injured or destroyed any of the said stock or utensils in trade or of the said fixtures or fittings as alleged in the 4th paragraph.

3. The defendants deny the several allegations in the 5th paragraph, and say that the plaintiff was not at the time of the happening of the said fire interested in the said goods or things, or any of them, as alleged in the said 5th paragraph.

4. In the circumstances herein appearing the defendants deny the several allegations in the 6th paragraph of the statement of claim, except the allegation that they have not paid the sums insured by the said policy, or any part thereof.

5. The policy effected with the defendants was subject to the condition that on the happening of any loss or damage by fire conditions. to any of the property thereby insured, the insured, within fifteen