250   RIGHTS OF BENEFICIARY, INSURED AND ASSIGNEE

ners, V. and M., were to receive this sum secured by the policy. S. shortly afterwards died unmarried, M. assigned his interest to A., and A. and V. sued to recover the insurance. The court held that V. and M. had an insurable interest, and were entitled to recover. Walton et al. v. National L. F. Life Ass. So. Angel on L. and F. In., p. 326, n. In the present case, Johnson had a direct interest in the life of his substitute, whose earnings were to constitute a part of the joint funds, of which he was entitled to his share, an interest fully equivalent to the interest of a wife in the life of her husband, of a child in that of a parent, or a sister in that of a brother. And at Van Middlesworth's death, although prior to that time the company had been virtually dissolved, he had an interest in him as his creditor, to the extent of his share of the assets in his hands.

I am, therefore, of opinion that there was no error in the ruling excepted to, and that the judgment must be affirmed. The Chief Justice concurred.'

ROMBACH v. PIEDMONT & ARLINGTON LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1883. 35 La. Ann. 233, 48 Am. Rep. 239.

MANNING, J. The plaintiff insured the life of his mother-in-law in the defendant Company in February, 1873, for two thousand dollars, the policy reciting that it is issued "for the sole use of her son-in-law, L. Rombach." His wife, the daughter of Eliza Geisler, had died leaving two children of tender years. Mrs. Geisler had insured her own life a month before in this Company for the benefit of two of her own children, for the sane sum as this policy.

The agent of the Company sought Rombach, and told him of the policy Mrs. Geisler had taken, and asked if he (lid not want to take another, to which Rombach answered approvingly, provided the consent of Mrs. Geisler was not necessary. He avowed his object to be the benefit of his only child, one of them having died. The agent assured him it was of no consequence whether she consented or not, provided he paid the premiums promptly.

The first quarterly premium of $22.86 was paid on the spot. Mrs. Geisler soon heard of the matter, and on March 20 she wrote to the Company expressing strong disapproval, and exhibiting bad feeling to her son-in-law, and demanding the cancellation of the policy.

7 Approved: Howard v. Commonwealth Beneficial Assn. (1922) 98 N. J. L. 267, 118 Atl. 449. For a discussion of the New Jersey doctrine see (1925) 14 Georgetown L. J. 115; (19.23) 8 Corn. L. Quar. 380. See further Cain, L. S., Insurable Interest in Life (1926) 6 Bost. U. L. Rev. 111.