210   RIGHTS AND POWERS OF INSURER

change to take effect on the endorsement of the same on the policy by the Company." In other words, where the terms of the con-tract specifically provide for the change of beneficiary by compliance with certain conditions, can the appellee's interest in the policy, whatever it may be termed, be lost to her by an agreement to cancel made by the insurer and the insured, to which agreement she is in no sense a party?

We shall endeavor to consider these questions in the order stated. The record discloses that this action was commenced on June 16, 1909, more than one year and six months after the execution of the policy. It seems to be a well recognized principle of insurance law that a provision in a contract of insurance limiting the time in which the insurer may take advantage of certain facts that might otherwise constitute a good defense to its liability on such contract, is valid and precludes every defense to the policy other than the defenses excepted in the provision itself. It also seems to be generally held that such a clause precludes the defense of fraud, as well as other defenses, and that it is not invalid on the theory that it is against public policy, provided the time in which the defenses must be made is not unreasonably short. An examination of the following cases will show that the holding of the courts of this country has been, almost universally, that every defense to a policy of insurance embraced within the terms of the "incontestable clause" is completely lost to the insurer if it fails to make the defense or takes affirmative action within the time limited by the policy. [Cases cited.] * * * We note that with great earnestness the appellant contends that "false and fraudulent representations of an applicant for life insurance, which are made warranties, will defeat recovery," but it must not be overlooked that there is no charge of fraud against the appellee herein, except through that part of the application in which it is provided that the insured for "any person claiming any interest in the policy" warranted all of his statements and answers to be true and also that the effort to plead this is made after the limitation provided in the contract, which limitation was certainly an inducement held out by the company to augment the sale of its contract. The incontestable clause is construed by us to be binding upon the appellant and to mean just what it says, that "after one year from the date of issue, this policy shall be incontestable if the premiums have been duly paid."

* * * The judgment of the Marion Superior Court is there-fore affirmed. * * *42

42 Suppose the policy is a forgery. Could that be set up as a defense after the expiration of the contestable period? Suppose the company has paid the policy but failed to require its surrender. May the company set that up as a defense after the contestable period?