246   RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARY, INStiRED AND ASSIGNEE

TRENTON JILT. LIFE & FIRE INS. CO. v. JOHNSON. Supreme Court of New Jersey. 1834. 24 N. J. L. 576. ELMER, J. * * *

But the error principally relied on, and the one most important is, that the court refused to charge as requested, "that under the facts proved the plaintiff had not shown an insurable interest to the full amount of the policy; that the policy was not a valued policy, but a policy of indemnity, and that the defendants were not bound to the full extent of the insurance unless on proof to such extent of the value of such interest ;" and that on the contrary, the court charged, "that under the facts proved, and considering that the nature and extent of the plaintiff's interest was truly stated to the defendants, at the time the insurance was effected, so far as the question of interest was concerned, sufficient was shown on the part of the plaintiff to entitle him to recover to the full amount of the policy. A policy of life insurance is a valued policy. Where a man effects an insurance upon his life, the amount to be recovered is the amount insured, there can be no other measure. In such cases insurers are bound to the full amount of such insurance, without proof of the value of interest to that extent."

The policy was effected by Johnson, the plaintiff, and Van Middlesworth, jointly, for the sum of one thousand dollars, for the use, benefit and account of the said Johnson to the amount of five hundred dollars, and for the use, benefit and account of the said Van Middlesworth, to the amount of five hundred dollars; and the declaration avers that the plaintiff, at the time and until the death of the said Van JIiddlesworth, was interested in his life in a large amount, to wit, the amount of five hundred dollars. The objection made on the trial, to the recovery for want of interest, and the charge on that subject, had reference only to the sum of five hundred dollars, insured for the benefit of Johnson, no objection having been made on that score to the recovery of the five hundred dollars insured for the benefit of Van Middlesworth himself. The declaration also avers that the nature of the plaintiff's interest in the life of Van Middlesworth was stated to the agents of the company, and the bill of exceptions shows that this averment was sustained by

designed as a hedge against risks which are already present, the object being to neutralize the existing risk. Thus a person who becomes the owner of property assumes the risk that it will burn, and takes out a policy of insurance to eliminate this risk or at least reduce its consequences. Every person living runs the risk of dying, every person in foreign trade assumes the risk that his goods will be lost at sea, every manufacturer runs the risk that some person will be injured on his premises and that he will be held responsible, every buyer of property runs the risk that his title will prove to be defective, every employer runs the risk that his employee will prove to be dishonest. Insurance is designed to reduce these existing risks instead of creating new ones." Riegel and Loman, Insurance Principles and Practices (1928) p. 24.