LIFE ASSURANCES. 1169 
A nes 
Secondly, that at the time of the death of the said R. B. Halford the 
plaintiff was not interested in his life. 
At the sittings after Easter Term, 1831, at Westminster, the action 
was tried before Lord Tenterden, and it appeared that, 
| By a settlement made on the marriage of the plaintiff, certain moneys 
i were settled, subject to trusts for the lives of the plaintiff and his wife, in 
trust for the children or child of the marriage, according to the appoint- 
: ment of the plaintiff and his wife; and in default of appointment, and 
IR hs if there should be one child only, then in trust for such child, to become 
ye a vested interest at 21 years. 
i or There was only one child of the marriage, the said R. B. Halford ; 
and the marriage being dissolved by Act of Parliament, the plaintiff 
¥ x married again, and effected the policy in question to provide against the 
: death of his son, R. B. Halford, before he attained 21. 
The said R. B. Halford attained 21 on the 2nd of June, 1827 ; and 
on the 5th of January, 1828, made his will, and thereby gave all his 
real and personal estate to his father, the plaintiff, appointing him sole 
executor, and died on the 11th of January, 1828. 
The plaintiff, on the 17th July, 1828, proved his son’s will in the 
Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
Lord Tenterden was of opinion that, the plaintiff not having any pecu- 
niary interest in the life of his son at the time when he effected the 
policy, the same was void by the Stat. of 14 Geo. I1I., cap. 48, sec. 3, 
and he nonsuited the plaintiff, reserving liberty to him to move to enter a 
verdict, if the Court should be of opinion that he had an insurable 
oil. interest. 
on in Mr F'. Pollock moved accordingly, and contended, at great length, that a 
signment party had an insurable interest in the life of his wife, child, or servant. 
were (During the argument, Bayley, Justice, quoted the case of ¢ Innes v. 
teat fo run The Equitable Assurance Company,’ tried before Lord Kenyon. Innes 
at 38 give had effected a policy on the life of his daughter. In order to show that 
he had an interest, he produced a paper, purporting to be a will, by 
which it appeared that he was entitled to the sum of 1000. in the event 
of her dying under the age of 21 years. One Gardiner swore that he 
was a subscribing witness to the will, and that it was made at Glasgow, 
1826. the and that he was acquainted with the other subscribing witnesses: but 
) another of those witnesses stated that it was not made at Glasgow, but 
il by a schoolmaster in the Borough. Innes was tried, convicted, and exe- 
| cuted for forgery ; and Gardiner, who had sworn that the will was made 
) at Glasgow, was convicted of perjury.) 
: Lord Tenterden. 1 retain the opinion which I expressed at the trial, 
that the word interest in this statute means pecuniary interest. 
. Mr. Justice Bayley. It is enacted by the third section, ¢ that no 
greater sum shall be recovered than the amount of the value of the in- 
terest of the insured in the life or lives.” Now what was the amount or 
value of the interest of the party insuring in this case? Not one farthing 
A 1