242   RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARY, INSURED AND ASSIGNEE

for a nonsuit, on the ground that the policy was forfeited by the failure to pay the premium on the day appointed and that the plaintiff had shown no interest in the life insured. The nonsuit was refused, and the defendant took an exception. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, which having been affirmed at general term in the first district, the defendant appealed to this court.

SELDEN, J.4 * * *

But assuming, that the prospectus became a part of the policy, and had the effect to modify its provisions in respect to the time for the payment of the premium, it is still insisted, that there could be no recovery without proof that the plaintiff had an interest in the life of Bugbee. * * *

Our inquiry, therefore, is, whether at common law, independent of any statute, it is essential to the validity of a policy, obtained by one person for his own benefit upon the life of another, that the party obtaining the policy should have an interest in the life insured.

A policy, obtained by a party who has no interest in the subject of insurance, is a mere wager policy. Wagers in general, that is, innocent wagers, are, at common law, valid; but wagers involving any immorality or crime, or in conflict with any principle of public policy, are void. To which of these classes, then, does a wagering policy of insurance belong?

Aside from authority, this question would seem to me of easy solution. Such policies, if valid, not only afford facilities for a demoralizing system of gaming, but furnish strong temptations to the party interested to bring about, if possible, the event insured against. In respect to insurances against fire, the obvious temptation presented by a wagering policy to the commission of the crime of arson has generally led the courts to hold such policies void, even at common law. It was so held in England, at an early day, by Lord Chancellor King, in Lynch v. Dalzell (4 Bro. P. O., 431), and by Lord Hardwicke, in Saddlers' Company v. Badcock (2 Atk., 557) ; and the courts in this country have generally acquiesced in and approved of the doctrine. In this State such policies would fall under the condemnation of our statute avoiding all wagers and gambling contracts of every sort; but they would, no doubt, also be held void, independently of that statute, at common law. In Howard v. The Albany Insurance Company (3 Denio, 301), Bronson, Ch. J., asserted the necessity of an interest in the assured in all such cases, referring, in support of the doctrine, not to the statute, but to the decisions of the Lord Chancellors King and Hardwicke (supra).

In regard, however, to marine insurances, a different rule seems to have prevailed in England; and the cases of Clendining v. Church

4 The part of the opinion holding that the prospectus, which provided for 30 days' grace was not a part of the contract, is omitted.