INSURABLE INTEREST   249

statute, so great is considered the injustice of requiring the continued subsistence of an insurable interest, that in practice it is disregarded, and the offices find it to their interest, and are in the common practice of paying, without any inquiry as to the interest.

* * * An insurance upon life has, in fact, but a remote re-semblance to a marine or fire insurance. In the latter, the particular object is to indemnify against a pecuniary loss; and the event upon which the money is made payable, is the happening of the loss, the contract being in terms to pay whatever is lost, not exceeding a specified sum. But a life insurance is a contract to pay a certain specific sum on the happening of a particular event, which may or may not occasion a pecuniary loss. Where that event is the death of the insured himself, there is nothing like an indemnity against loss to him, for the can never receive the money. In such a case, the object is to provide for some relative or friend, or creditor, and this person who is to be benefited by his death has, in many cases, the same motive to desire it, as in the case where the premium is paid and the insurance obtained by a third person. Upon a view of the whole matter, I think it admits of great doubt whether the English statute, by throwing impediments in the way of life insurances, and by raising questions often of difficult solution as to the nature and amount of the required interest, can be regarded as wise and salutary. At all events, in the absence of any such legislation here, I see no solid ground upon which we can safely depart from the doctrines of the common law, and upon reasons of doubtful expediency, held a policy of life insurance to be something different from what it purports to be—that is to say, a contract to indemnify against loss, and not a contract to pay a given sum, upon the happening of a particular event.

But if it be admitted that an interest in the life of Van Middles-worth on the part of Johnson, was necessary to be shown, I think it satisfactorily appeared that he had such interest. It is clear that the policy was entered into not as a cover for a wager, but for the bona fide purpose of securing Johnson against what he and the company regarded as a danger of real pecuniary loss. The interest required need not be such as to constitute the basis of any direct claim in favor of the plaintiff upon the party whose life is insured; it is sufficient if an indirect advantage may result to the plaintiff from his life, and therefore the reciprocal interests of husband and wife, parent and child, and brother and sister, in the lives of each other, are sufficient to support the contract. 2 Greenl. Ev. sec. 409; Lord v. Dall, 12 Mass. 115. In a case before the circuit court of Albany, three persons, V., M. and S., entered into a co-partnership to carry on the liquor business. S. undertook the business, and against the capital of V. and M., was to put in his skill. S. insured his life for ten thousand dollars, and by the articles of co-partner-ship, in case of his death without children, or unmarried, his part-