488   _MATURITY OF THE POLICY

it is against public policy to permit such contracts of insurance to be made, in that the tendency is to prevent voluntary enlistments in the army or navy of the Government, or to induce the holder of such a policy to evade or resist involuntary enlistment under the draft laws. We do not think the argument is well founded. An insurance company has the right to select the particular risks it is willing to assume, and there is no public policy against a contract of this sort exempting the insurance company, in advance, from liability for death of the insured while in the military or naval service of the Government. The stipulation does not provide for a forfeiture of the policy, but merely for an exemption from liability under certain circumstances and conditions. It holds out no inducements to the assured to refrain from enlistment in his Country's service, and does not constitute, in any sense, an agreement not to enlist or to evade the draft law. * * *

It will be observed that the provisions of the policy now under consideration is not for a forfeiture, but is merely an exemption from liability on account of death occurring under certain circumstances. It is not a case where acceptance of premiums with knowledge of the forfeiture constitutes recognition of the continued valid existence of the policy; nor does the case fall within the principle that a forfeiture is waived where an insurance company when it enters into a contract has knowledge through any of its authorized _ agents of facts whieh would work a forfeiture. * * *

There was no forfeiture provided for at all, but the company had, as before stated, the right to stipulate under what circumstances it should be liable. The assured had the right to pay the premium and continue the policy in force while he was in the military service of the Government, notwithstanding the exemption of the company from liability for death occurring during the period of that service, and the mere acceptance by the company of the premium with knowledge of the fact that the assured was in the military service of the Government did not constitute a waiver of the stipulation in regard to exemption. In other words, when the assured paid his premium, his policy was kept in force, and would have remained in force if the assured had survived the period of his service in the army. * * *

Our conclusion is that the circuit court was correct in its decision, cision, and the judgment is, therefore, affirmed."

17 Accord: Ruddock v. Detroit Life Ins. Co. (1920) 209 Mich. 638, 177 N. W. 242 (death from pneumonia at Camp Custer U. S. A.) ; Sandstedt v. American Cent. Life Ins. Co. (1920) 109 Wash. 338, 186 Pac. 1069 (death from pneumonia in France) ; Mattox v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1920) 25 Ga. App. 311, 103 S. E. 180 (death from pneumonia while on a transport en route to France) ; Reid v. American Nat. Assur. Co. (1920) 204 Mo. App. 643, 218 S. W. 957 (death from pneumonia while in a camp in North Carolina) ; Slaughter v. Protective League Life Ins. Co. (1920) 205 Mo. App. 352, 223 S. W. 819 (death from pneumonia in France after the armistice; was this in time of wart) Brad-