484   MATURITY OF THE POLICY

pally to pay, lest by so doing it lend encouragement to other policy holders to seek murder, and execution therefor, in order that their estates or heirs might profit thereby. This is defendant in error's position. This contention seems to border closely on the absurd. We know of no rule of public policy in this State that will enforce this species of forfeiture, but there is a rule of law which has often been applied when two parties make a valid contract and the same has been completely performed by one party and nothing remains except the performance by the other, which will compel performance or award damages for the default against the delinquent party.

We are aware that courts have not always reached the same conclusion upon this question. So far as we are advised, all the cases in which the opposite conclusion has been reached are based upon the English case, Amicable Society v. Bolland, 4 Blight, (N. R.) 194, decided by the House of Lords in 1830. The facts in that case as stated by the Lord Chancellor are: "In January, 1815, Henry Fauntleroy insured his life with the Amicable Insurance Society. In the month of May, in the same year, he committed a forgery on the Bank of England. He continued to pay the premiums upon his insurance for a considerable period of time. In the year 1824 he was apprehended, and on the 29th of October in that year he was declared a bankrupt and an assignment of his effects was made to the respondent. On the following day, the 30th of October, he was tried for forgery, found guilty and sentenced to death, and in the month of November following was executed." The court held that there could be no recovery. The grounds of the decision were, that to allow a recovery would "take away one of those restraints operating on the minds of men against the commission of crime."

It should be borne in mind that forfeitures for the commission of crime were enforced in England at the time of this decision, and continued to be, with more or less severity, until abolished by 33 and 34 Victoria, passed in 1870. * * * The decision in the Bolland case was based on the ground of public policy, and no doubt was in strict accordance with the established policy of Great Britain at that time. As a declaration of the public policy of the English government at the time the decision was announced it must stand as conclusive evidence of such policy, but it is no evidence whatever that the same public policy prevails in any other nation or government. Each nation or State having the power to adopt a constitution and legislate for itself necessarily has the inherent power to declare its own rules of public policy. * * *

The question, therefore, is one to be determined by our own local rules of public policy. In view of these rules as evidenced by our constitution and the statutes above referred to, we conclude that the execution of the assured for crime is no defense against an