INCONTESTABLE CLAUSE   219

pally defended on the ground the insured in his application for insurance knowingly made false representations regarding the state of his health and other matters material to the risk. (Priest v. Life Insurance ('o., 116 Kan. 421, 227 Pac. 53S.) The binding force of the contract pleaded as a basis of liability was challenged because the company was induced to enter into it by fraud of the insured, and the case was a typical case of contest of the policy. We have no such case here.

The company has no quarrel whatsoever with the policy. Its position is, the policy is valid in all respects, expresses the obligation of the company, and the company desires to fulfil that obligation. What the company contests is an assertion of liability which it says the policy did not create.

By agreeing not to contest the policy, the company did not agree to stand mute before any unfounded claim which might be predicated on the policy. The application was made a part of the policy, and stated the applicant's age. Amount of premium is fixed ac-cording to age, and the policy contained the following provision:

"If the age of the insured was misstated, the amount payable hereunder shall be such as the premium paid would have purchased at the correct age."

Suppose it were admitted the age of the applicant was misstated, the premium based on the stated age would purchase insurance to the amount of $2,500 only, and the beneficiary sued for the face amount of the policy, $3,000. In contesting liability for more than $2,500, the company would be insisting on the contract, not con-testing it, and it would be unfair to other policyholders paying the proper rate, as well as unfair to the company, not to enforce the policy according to its plain terms. The policy contained provisions relating to loans made to the insured. One of them was that any indebtedness to the company secured by the policy should be de-ducted in making settlement of benefit. Suppose the beneficiary should sue for the face amount of the policy, it should be admitted an unpaid loan was made to the assured on security of the policy, and the company should resist payment of more than the difference between the amount of the loan and the face amount of the policy. It would be idle to contend the company was contesting the policy. Whatever grounds may exist or may have existed for rescission, cancellation, modification, or other attack on the policy, after expiration of one year from date of issue the policy stood as the in-disputable contract, unalterably determined the liability of the company, and the obligation of the contract expressed by the policy must be fulfilled. But to say this determines nothing with respect to what the terms of the contract are which must be fulfilled. Both plaintiff and the company insist that the policy be enforced according to its terms, and the difference between them is a difference respecting interpretation.