LIFE ASSURANCES. 1163 
The interest of the plaintiff in the life was a debt of 900.. due from 
Sheppy. 
Wi It appeared on the trial that Sheppy had a situation in the Customs in 
od. if Ireland, and went to the south of France for the benefit of his health, or 
die, to avoid his creditors, and there died within the time limited by the 
Ws policy. The broker who effected the policy told the underwriters that 
¢ ford the gentleman for whom he acted would not warrant anything ; but, 
from the account he (the broker) had received, he believed the life to be 
a good one. 
Lord Mansfield.—As to the interest, this policy may be considered 
as a collateral security for the debt due to the plaintiff. When there 
is no warranty, the underwriter runs the risk of its being a good life or 
not. If there be a concealment of any knowledge of the state of the life 
: itis a fraud, Itis a rule that every subsequent underwriter gives credit 
to the representation made to the first; and it is allowed that any sub- 
sequent underwriter may give in evidence a misrepresentation to the 
first, The broker here does not pretend to any knowledge of his own, 
but speaks from information. There is no fraud in him. 
Verdict for the plaintiff. 
The most remarkable feature in this case is, that it does not appear 
what the information was from which the broker spoke: if he had, in 
r fact, received no information on the subject, his statement to the under- 
writers would have been a misrepresentation. 
that tt. 
Dr. He- 
ud ne Dwyer v. Epig, Hilary, 1788. 
By a memorandum at the foot of the policy, it was declared that it was 
mee. intended to cover the sum of 50007. due from James Russell (the party 
th that we on whose life the insurance was effected) to the plaintiff, for which Rus- 
on of the sell had given his note, payable in one year, from the 14th of March, 
ent policy 1784. 
hers, i Two objections were made on the part of the defendant: — 
Sucha First, That part of the consideration of the note was money won at 
7 ome play. 
A man Secondly, That Russell, when he gave the note, was an infant. 
a wk Myr. Justice Buller nonsuited the plaintiff on the ground that, as part 
of the consideration of the note was for a gaming transaction, there was 
a want of interest in the plaintiff. 
But as to the objection of Russell’s infancy, his lordship said the 
interest was contingent; for Russell might or might not have avoided 
the note ; and his lordship doubted much whether, till so avoided, the 
note must not be taken, as agmnst a third person, to be the note of a 
J Drany person of full age : and the maker of the note, only, could take the ob- 
ag! jection.