LEGAI. CASES DECIDED ON 
Anperson v. Epig, K. B., 1795. 
An insurance was effected on the life of Lord N ewhaven, by the 5 . 
plaintiff, on the 1st of December, 1792; and, in an action on the policy, oe 
the only question raised was as to the plaintiff’s interest. 7 
It appeared that Lord Newhaven was indebted to the plaintiff and a 
Mr. Mitchell in a large sum of money, part of which debt had been o 
assigned by them to another person: the remainder, being more than i» 
the amount of the sum insured, was, upon a settlement of accounts be- on 
tween the plaintiff and Mitchell, agreed by them to remain to the a 
account of Mitchell. 
Lord Kenyon was of opinion that this debt was a sufficient interest : b 
he said it was singular that this question had never been directly decided 
before: a creditor had certainly an interest in the life of his debtor, be- 
cause the means by which he was to be satisfied might materially 
depend upon it; and that, at all events, the death must, in all cases, in 
some degree lessen the security.—Verdict for the plaintiff. 
The above doctrine of Lord Kenyon has been thought too general. 
By the 3rd section of the Act 14 Geo. III, cap. 48, it is provided, © that 
in all cases, where the insured hath an interest in such life or lives, : 
event or events, no greater sum shall be recovered or received from the i " 
insurer or insurers than the amount or value of the interest of the in- E 
sured in such life or lives, or other event or events.’ Tt has been asked, fre 
in a case where the debt is amply secured, by mortgage or otherwise, 
what can be the amount or value’ of the creditor’s interest in the life ? 
Surely nothing that a jury could estimate !—F%de Marshall on Insur- 
ances. i. 
GopsaLL AND oTHERS v. BoLpERO, 9 East, 72. ~ 
The plaintiffs were coachmakers in Long Acre, and, on the 29th of at 
November, 1803, effected an insurance with the Pelican Life Insurance 
Company on the life of the Right Honourable William Pitt, for 5001. : 
for seven years, at an annual premium of 157. 15s. 
It appeared that Mr. Pitt, at the time of effecting the policy, and 
thence to the time of his death, was indebted to the plaintiffs in more 
than 500/., and died insolvent. After his death, and before the com- ) 
mencement of the suit, Mr. Pitt’s executors paid to the plaintiffs, out of 
the money granted by Parliament for the discharge of his debts, 11097. 
11s. 6d. in full for the debt due to them from Mr. Pitt. 
The Court determined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover. 
They held that this insurance, like every other to which the law gives 
effect, is, in its nature, a contract of indemnity, as distinguished from a 
wager. The interest which the plaintiffs had in the life of Mr. Pitt 
was that of creditors, where the probability of payment depended on the 
continuance of his life, and the indemnity sought by the insurance was 
against the loss which might result from his death. 
1161