478   MATURITY OF THE POLICY

Had the beneficiary murdered the insured, she could not have recovered upon the policy. This seems to be the prevailing rule, even where there is no provision in the policy bearing on the subject. [Cases cited.] In some of those cases it was held that, although the beneficiary could not recover, the family or estate of the insured could recover. They also point out, what seems to be a manifestly proper rule, that, if the beneficiary may not recover, no one claiming under him may do so. The cases holding that a beneficiary who has murdered the insured may not recover are based upon a rule of public policy, and not upon any provision of the insurance policy. In some of them it is stated that, if the policy on its face provided for its payment in the event of the insured being murdered by the beneficiary, it would not be enforceable by the beneficiary if the latter killed the insured, as such a contract would be against public policy, and that in the absence of such a provision the same result must be reached, as it would be illogical to say that recovery could be had by a beneficiary who murdered the insured, in the absence of a provision in the policy to that effect, when such recovery could not be had if the policy expressly so provided.

There is a further reason why we think plaintiff may not recover. It is that the insured lost his life by operation of law, as punishment for the crime of murder which he committed. In a legal sense, the situation is quite the same as it is when the insured commits suicide. The legal difference, so far as the question under consideration goes. is merely in the agency that produces death. In the case of a suicide, the agency is his own hand. In the case of one who is killed by operation of law, as punishment for a crime that he has committed, the agency is the arm of the law, but death is really brought about by the act of the insured in committing the crime. There is a conflict of authority as to whether an insurer is liable where death is brought about by suicide, the insured being sane, and there being no clause in the policy relating to it. Where an insane person commits suicide there seems to be no reason for relieving the insurer. * * *

There are other cases holding that recovery cannot be had where the insured lost his life at the hands of justice. Such was the decision where the policy was payable to the legal representatives or the estate of the insured; * * * also where it was payable to a third party, with the right in the insured to change the beneficiary. * * *

There are decisions, however, to the contrary of those already mentioned. The Supreme Court of Illinois has held, in a case in which the policy was payable to the estate of the insured, that his death at the hands of justice did not relieve the company from liability, and that his estate could recover upon the policy. Collins v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 232 Ill. 37, 83 N. E. 542, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 356, 122 Am. St. Rep. 54, 13 Ann. Cas. 129. The opinion in