SELF DESTRUCTION OF INSURED   459

isfactory evidence of his death and surrender of the certificate * * * to pay to his wife, Lillie Campbell, out of its benefit fund, the sum of $3,000. * * *

There was evidence to warrant a finding by the jury that Dr. Campbell intentionally killed himself by a pistol shot, just after his arrest on a charge of forgery, made as he was returning home from professional calls as a physician. The trial justice directed a verdict for the plaintiff, after refusing various requests to charge, presented by the defendant, the most comprehensive of which was as follows:

"That although the by-laws of the defendant, as also the benefit certificate sued on, are silent as to suicide, there is an implied condition in the contract that if the event upon which the risk was assured—the death of the said Campbell—was brought about by his own deliberate act, while in sound mind, there can be no recovery." * * *

COLLINS, .I. * * *

I shall treat this case, therefore, as within the general range of life insurance. In the words of the author of a treatise on that subject, published in the year 1891: "If performance by an insurer is, in general terms, conditioned on the death of the insured. there seems no valid reason why death by committing suicide should not be included; and such is the general doctrine." * * *

The application of the doctrine has always happened to be in cases where the insurance was effected for some designated beneficiary other than the insured; and to that extent no state court has departed from it, as will be seen on examination of the cases cited in the most recent publications. * * *

It should be understood, of course. that I have not been speaking of insurance procured with the intention of committing suicide. That, all courts concede, is voidable, because of fraud.

The Ritter case arose in 1892, was decided in 1895 (70 Fed. Rep. 954; 28 U. S. App. 612) and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in 1898. Ritter, Executor of Runk, v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 169 U. S. 139.

161; Hewitt v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (1925) 8 Fed. (2d) 706, Comments (1926) 20 Ill. L. Rev. 839; 12 Va. L. Rev. 513; 35 Yale L. J. 759.

Suppose the beneficiary kills the insured through negligence. Should there be recoveryl The company was held liable in Throop v. 'Western Indemnity Co. (1920) 49 Cal. App. 322, 193 Pac. 263, Comments (1921) 19 Mich. L. Rev. 444, 21 Colum. L. Rev. 385.

For further discussion of the problems involved see Grossman, D. M., Liability and Rights of the Insurer When the Death of the Insured Is Caused by the Beneficiary or by an Assignee (1930) 10 Bost. Univ. L. Rev. 283; Mintz, Copal, Murder of the Insured as a Defense to a Suit on a Life Policy (1929) 3 St. Johns Law Rev. 230; Murder of Insured by Beneficiary (1901) 14 Harv. L. Rev. 375; Murder of Insured by Beneficiary (1929) 15 Corn. L. Q. 116; Murder of Insured by Beneficiary (1910) 24 Harv. L. Rev. 227; Disposition of the Insurance Money When the Beneficiary Murders the Insured (1920) 20 Colum. L. Rev. 465; Comments (1930) 28 Mich. L. Rev. 346; (1921) 5 Minn. L. Rev. 396; (1924) 6 Ill. L. Q. 332; (1921) 34 Harv. L. Rev. 788; (1929) 29 Colum. L. Rev. 361.