236   RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARY INSURED AND ASSIGNEE

amount due under the policy and asked the court to determine to whom it should be paid. Joseph E. O'Donnell answered, claiming the proceeds by reason of the fact that he was the beneficiary named in the policy. There is no controversy here over the amount to be paid.

The legal question argued is one of insurable interest. Plaintiff contends that the defendant had no insurable interest in the life of the insured. This argument lacks merit. Ruby C. Hoffman O'Donnell had an insurable interest in her own life, and in the absence of any statute, or of any by-law, rule or other provision of the insurance company to the contrary, she could, acting in good faith, take out a policy of insurance upon her own life and name whom she pleased as beneficiary. In 37 C. J. 389, the rule is thus stated:

"A person may in good faith and without fraud, collusion, or an intent to enter into a wagering contract, lawfully take out a policy of insurance on his own life, and make the benefit payable to whomsoever he pleases, either himself or his estate or a third person regardless of whether or not the latter has an insurable interest; insured has an unlimited insurable interest in his own life which is sufficient to support the policy."

The text is supported by numerous authorities. Nothing in our statute, or in the decisions of this court, has been called to our attention indicating a contrary view. In this case the court specifically found, or held :

"The policy of insurance in controversy was one by which Ruby C. Hoffman, alias Ruby C. O'Donnell, insured her own life in favor of Joseph E. O'Donnell; that is to say, it was not taken out by him on her life in his own favor."

This finding of the court brings the case clearly within the rule of law above stated. Much of the argument in this case is based upon the opposite assumption; that is, upon the premise that Joseph E. O'Donnell took out the policy in which he himself was named as beneficiary upon the life of Ruby C. Hoffman O'Donnell. Starting with this premise, it is argued that Joseph E. O'Donnell did not have an insurable interest in the life of Ruby C. Hoffman O'Donnell. Even starting with this assumption, perhaps the contention of plaintiff is not well founded, * * *; but it is not necessary for us to pass upon that question. This argument involves the question of the insurable interest of one who takes out a policy of insurance upon the life of another ; but under the finding and conclusion of the trial court we do not have that question before us. Plaintiff complains of this finding and conclusion of the court. But if treated as a finding, there is ample evidence to sustain it. The petition in this case alleges that the policy was issued to her and that she paid the premiums thereon. The application was signed by the insured, the first premium was paid by a check on the joint bank account of