212   RIGHTS AND POWERS OF INSURER BROMLEY v. WASHINGTON LIFE INS. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1906.
122 Ky. 402, 92 S. W. 17, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 747, 121 Am. St. 467,
12 Ann. Cas. 685.

Honsox, C. J. In December, 1900, George Bromley made an arrangement with Otis Bates by which he was to have his life insured for $1,000, and Bates was to pay the premiums and pay him $50 for the policy, which was to be assigned to Bates by Bromley. He made the application for the policy in Washington Life Insurance Company, which issued the policy on January 29, 1901, the policy being payable to his estate. Bromley and Bates then came to the office of the local agent. Bates was fixing to pay the premium and Bromley asked him if he would not take another $1,000 on the same terms. He agreed to pay the premiums and pay him $25 for another policy of like amount. Bromley then applied for another policy and the application was sent on, the agent retaining the policy which had come and Bates giving the agent a check for $127.64, the premium on the two policies. On February 18, 1901, Bates gave Bromley a check for $75 for the two policies as promised. The policies were assigned by Bromley to Bates. The assignment on the policies is dated March 25, 1901. The policies were never delivered to Bromley, but remained in the hands of the insurance agent until the assignment was put on them and he then delivered them to Bates. When the subsequent premiums fell due on the policies they were paid by Bates; after this Bromley died and this suit was brought by his administrator to recover on the policies. Bates was made a defendant and by his answer set up that the policies belong to him. The insurance company pleaded the facts above stated, insisting that the policies were a wagering contract and void. On final hearing the court dismissed the petition of the administrator and he appeals.

The proof shows clearly that Bates had no insurable interest in the life of Bromley, and while the assignment on the policies is dated March 25, 1901, the proof is clear that the policies were taken out by Bromley for the purpose of assigning them to Bates, under the arrangement that Bates .was to pay him $75 for them and pay the premiums. * * * The law does not allow one who has no insurable interest in the life of another, to insure it for his benefit, for the reason that it is a mere wager and holds out a temptation to fraud, the insurer having no interest in the life of the assured and having a direct interest in his death. * * *

It is also insisted for the plaintiff that as the policies contain a clause to the effect that they are incontestable after one year, the company can not rely upon this defense. But the incontestable clause is no less a part of the contract than any other provision of

s