Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/319

 232

THE GREEN BAG

ASSIGNABILITY OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY TO ONE PAYING THE PREMIUM BY EDWIN MAXEY. IN view of the fact that it is not uncom expended in purchasing the policy and keep mon for a person wishing to borrow ing it alive. But in its opinion the court money to assign his insurance policy to any said that "the assignment of a policy to a one who is willing to furnish the money, the party not having an insurable interest is as assignee to keep the policy alive by paying objectionable as the taking out of a policy the premiums, — it is important that we in his name." This is not good logic, inquire into the validity of such assign neither is it consistent with the decision, for if the policy would have been taken ments. If made merely as collateral secu rity for the payment of a debt, the matter out by the assignee in this case it would is free from doubt, because the creditor has have been void and no one would have acquired any rights under it. This part of an insurable interest in the life of the in sured to the extent of his indebtedness; the opinion must be considered as mere or, if for any other reason the assignee has obiter, the real ground of the decision being an insurable interest, there is no question that as there was an agreement to assign as to his right to make a valid contract at the time the policy was taken out the with the insured or his beneficiaries for the assignment was in the nature of a wagering assignment of the policy. But suppose,- as contract except in so far as it was made to often happens, that he has no insurable secure the assignee for amounts paid by interest and that his sole claim to collect him on the policy. The decision in this insurance rests upon his contract with the case was based largely on Cammack r. assignor and the fact that he has paid the Lewis, 15 Wallace 643, in which it was premiums, what are his rights? held that where a policy of $3000.00 was Upon this question the decisions of the assigned to one who was creditor to the courts are hopelessly in conflict. They vary extent of but $70.00, assignee to pay pre from the extreme view that insurance poli miums, he could collect but $70.00 plus the cies are assignable just as any other chose premium, notwithstanding the assignment in action, to the equally extreme view that was absolute in form. such an assignment renders the policy abso The theory underlying both these cases lutely void. A considerable portion of this is that an assignment of a life insurance conflict is fairly traceable to the language policy to one not having an insurable inter used by the Supreme Court of the United est, though absolute in its terms, is to be States in the much-quoted case of Warnock construed as an assignment for the purpose v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775. This was a case in of furnishing collateral security to the which, by an agreement bearing even date assignee rather than as being an absolute with the policy, the insured assigned the transfer of the rights of the insured under policy to one having no insurable interest the policy. Such a construction takes the in the life of the insured. By the condi transaction out of the class of gambling con tions of the assignment, the assignee was to tracts and measurably relieves it of the pay the premiums and receive nine-tenths objection that it is contrary to public policy of the proceeds of the policy. The court in that it creates an interest in the assignee held that the assignee was eptitled to in favor of the early death of the insured. retain out of the policy, merely what was It has been followed in Helmetag v. Miller, necessary to reimburse him for what he had 76 Ala. 183; Rison v. Wilkerson, 3 Sneed,