If, however, the owners whose names do appear on the registry be bona fide acting as trustees for those whose names do not appear, and are thereby not defeating the objects of the Act, it would seem that this may entitle them to recover. Ibid.

A merchant in England who agrees verbally to purchase goods, which are then expected to arrive in vessels from abroad, can have no insurable interest in the goods so purchased, by reason of the agreement being verbal (Stockdale v. Dunlop, 6 Mee. and W., p. 224); but as this turns on the law of sale peculiar to England, it is thought it cannot apply to the law of Scotland. An insurance in Scotland in such circumstances would be good; and had the agreement been in writing, it would also have been unexceptionable in England.

A part owner of a ship having a lien on ship and cargo for a sum paid by him as salvage, to relieve the ship and cargo from the salvors, has an insurable interest to cover that lien.-(Briggs v. The Merchant Traders' Ship Loan and Assurance Association, 13 Q. B. 167.)

1. LIFE INSURANCE.

A creditor has an insurable interest in the life of his debtor for the debt owing to him (Godsall v. Boldero, 9 East. 72; Lindenau v. Desborough, 8 Bar. and C. 586; Forbes and Co. v. Life Insurance Company, 9 March 1832, S. and D. 451; Stevenson or White v. Cotton, 24 June 1846, S. and D. 872); but a party who has no interest in the life of another

cannot insure.

It must appear that the party who insures and the life insured stand in the relation of debtor and creditor at the time of the insurance, and also at the time of the insured's death.-(Godsall v. Boldero, 9 East. 72; but see Dalby v. The India and London Assurance Company, 15 Q. B. 365.)

In all policies of this nature, it must appear that the insured has an interest; and it must be set forth in the policy for whose use, benefit, or on whose account, such policy is made. Thus, where a party of the name of Hodson had effected a life insurance on the life of Charlotte Weir in the following terms: -"Observer Life Assurance Society Offices, 70, Cheapside, London. Policy, No. 18. Sum assured, L.1500. Premium, L.42, 2s. 6d., payable yearly. Whereas James Hodson, junior, of, etc., alleging himself to be interested in the life of Charlotte Weir, of, etc., is desirous and hath proposed to effect an insurance with the Observer Life Assurance Society upon the life of the said Charlotte Weir for the whole continuance thereof, and hath caused to be delivered in the office of the said Society a declaration," etc., -it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, as the party's name for whose benefit and interest the policy was effected did not appear on the face of the policy, in terms of the statute 14 Geo. III., c. 48, Charlotte Weir's name only appearing as the name of the party whose life was insured. (Hodson v. Observer Life Assurance Society, 8 El. and Bl. 40.)

A father has no insurable interest in the life of his son (Campbell v. Allan, Mor. App. Ins., No. 3;

Halford v. Keymer, 10 B. and C. 724), nor a son any insurable interest in the life of his father (Shilling v. The Accidental Death Insurance Company, 17 March 1858, Fors. and Fin. 116). The statute 14 Geo. III., c. 48, strikes against these insurances, as partaking of the nature of wagering contracts. But a husband has an insurable interest in the life of his wife (Huckman v. Ferrie, 3 Mee. and Wel. 505; Wight v. Brown, 27 Jan. 1849, S. and D., p. 459); and he has also an insurable interest in the furniture of the house where he and his wife reside, although the furniture, by marriage contract, has been conveyed exclusively to the wife, for her separate use.

(Goulstone v. The Royal Insurance Company, Trin. Ter. 1858, Fors. and Fin. 276.) The wife has also an insurable interest in the life of her husband. -(Reed v. Royal Exchange Assurance Company, 2 Peake, p. 70.)

Where two brothers had joined in a bond to the North British Insurance Company, for L.500, advanced in loan by the company, in order to allow the younger to set up in business upon the security of a policy of insurance for L.1000, effected on his life,— the policy bearing the name of the elder brother, for whose benefit it was effected;-it was held, though the premiums had been paid by the elder brother, that he had no further interest than to the extent of L.500, the other L.500 going to the younger brother's representatives. (Lindsay and The North British Insurance Company v. Barmcottee and others, 9 Feb. 1851, S. and D. 719.)

At one time, insurances "interest or no interest”

were very common; but as this degenerated into a species of gaming or wagering, the Act 19 Geo. II., c. 37, was passed, prohibiting such insurances, as partaking of the nature of gaming or wagering contracts. This Act refers only to the insurance of ships and merchandise; and has been interpreted not to extend to the insurance of foreign ships. The Act 14 Geo. III., c. 48, has reference to the insurance of lives, having in view a similar object, and prohibiting insurances effected on lives by parties who have no interest in these lives.(Hodson v. Observer Life Assurance Society, 8 El. and Bl. 40; Shilling v. The Accidental Death Insurance Company, For. and Fin. 116.)

If there is any fraudulent scheme devised, or has been the inducing motive to the insurance, it will annul it. Thus where an insurance had been effected on the life of Walter Palmer for L.13,000, on 31st Jan. 1855, apparently made by himself, but in reality devised as a fraudulent scheme by his brother, William Palmer, in order that he might reap the benefit of the insurance. The policy was assigned on 13th Feb. 1855 to him, by his brother, Walter Palmer, nominally for a debt of L.400. Walter Palmer was then only 32 years of age; and he died in August of the same year, under such suspicious circumstances, that the jury, at the inquest held on his body, found that William Palmer did feloniously and wilfully kill and murder his brother. Notwith

standing this, he set up a claim for the sum in the policy. No prosecution or trial followed the verdict of the inquest; but William Palmer was thereafter

tried and sentenced to death, and was hanged for the murder of John Parsons Cook, on whose life an insurance was also effected, and assigned to him. An action was raised by the insurance company to have the first-mentioned policy returned to them, in order to have it cancelled, as void, on the ground of fraud, and that William Palmer had really no insurable interest in the life of his brother, and that it had been devised and concocted as a fraudulent scheme. The Master of the Rolls held that Walter Palmer, whose life had been insured, had really never any interest; and that the whole affair was a fraudulent scheme of William Palmer, his brother, to obtain the benefit of the policy, by precipitating the event on which it was to be payable.-(The Prince of Wales Association Assurance Company v. Palmer (1858), 25 Beav. 605.)

So, in a case, where the wife had effected an insurance on the life of her husband, for L.2000, on 11th April. He was then in perfect good health, but died on the 17th April. In an action on the policy, at the wife's instance, the judge thought that the wife had an undoubted insurable interest in the life of her husband, and stopped counsel from proving an interest. But a letter was adduced, written by her to a young man, about the time of effecting the policy, so suspicious in its character, as induced her counsel to consent to a non-suit. She was afterwards tried for the murder of her husband; but was acquitted. (Reed v. Royal Exchange Assurance Company, 2 Peake, 70.)

If the life of the insured is taken away by his execution for a felony, this would seem to void the