DEATH BY LEGAL EXECUTION   479

that case refers to Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506, 22 N. E. 188, 5 L. R. A. 340, 12 Am. St. Rep. 819, and says it "has not generally been regarded as sound by the other courts." Referring to the Fauntleroy Case, the opinion points out that forfeitures for the commission of crime were enforced in England at the time of that decision, and adds that it was based upon the ground of public policy, but that it is no evidence that the same public policy prevails in this country. Apparently because of the provision in the Constitution of the state of Illinois that no conviction should work a forfeiture of estate, that court held the insurance company was liable, and that to hold otherwise would be to forfeit the property rights which the deceased and his estate had in the policy.

It is not readily understood, however, how the court reached this conclusion, because in the opinion, reference is made to another case in the same court, which it recognized as being sound, in which it was held that a beneficiary who had murdered the insured could not recover. Knights and Ladies of Honor v. Menkhausen, 209 Ill. 277, 70 N. E. 567. It would seem that the beneficiary in the latter case had as great rights as the insured had in the Collins Case, and, if they could not be taken away in one, they should not have been taken away in the other. If a refusal to permit recovery would work a forfeiture, as the Collins opinion held, then equally must the decision in the Menkhausen Case have produced that result. It can make no difference who the beneficiary is, if the decision is to turn on the question of forfeiture. The Collins Case, however, has been followed in several other jurisdictions. In Tennessee, under a similar constitutional provision, the court held there could be recovery on the policy; that the situation was the same as if the assured had committed suicide. Fields v. _Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 147 Tenn. 464, 249 S. W. 798, 36 A. L. R. 1250. Under a similar constitutional provision, the same result was reached in Texas. American Nat. Ins. Co. v. Coates, 112 Tex. 267, 246 S. W. 356. * * *

The main reason given in the cases that hold that neither the suicide of the insured nor his death at the hands of justice should defeat recovery is that otherwise there would be a forfeiture. We do not find ourselves in accord with that view. We think no forfeiture results, even though recovery be denied. The question was considered by our Court of Appeals in the Riggs Case, supra. * * * There it was held that the act of one who was a legatee under a will, in killing the testator, deprived him of his right to his legacy. Apparently there is no provision in the Constitution of the state of New York regarding forfeitures. There is, however, this provision in section 512 of the Penal Law:

"A conviction of a person for any crime does not work a forfeiture of any property, real or personal, or of any right or interest therein. * * *"