LIFE ASSURANCES 1165
The action was, therefore, founded on a supposed damnification of the
LS plaintiffs, occasioned by his death, and existing at the time of the action
nr brought. And, consequently, if, before the action brought, the damages
occasioned by his death were prevented by payment of his debt, the
ground of the action was taken away.
From the above case it is clear that there must not only be an interest
in the life at the time of effecting the policy, but also a continuing inte-
: rest to the time of the demand made upon the office, though most offices,
a0 tae we believe, are in the habit now of paying the amount without troubling
themselves to ascertain or inquire about the amount of interest of the
0 tere party claiming.— Fede Barber v. Morris, Post.
> - Sik Wu. Fores AND oTHERS ©. THE EpiNnsurcu Lire Assurance
I Company, March, 1830.
W aes. in This was an action tried in the Jury Court at Edinburgh, and was
i i brought to recover 30007. sterling on a policy of assurance effected on
ried it the life of the Earl of Mar. oo
5 z fe It appeared from the evidence on the part of the plaintiffs (pursuers
od for » as termed in the Scotch courts) that the Earl of Mar, who had been
hs some years absent from Scotland, was, on his return, an early riser;
fem was very tasteful in his gardens and plantations—paid particular atten-
an ke tion to business—his memory was good—he spent much time in
: il reading—and, in short, the witnesses were led to conclude he was in the
oo enjoyment of perfectly good health.
Co His lordship, however, met with a disappointment on ascertaining the
true state of his affairs at his father’s death ; subsequently he kept no
company, sank gradually into deep melancholy, and, sometimes, sO
neglected himself as not to shave for a week or two. Lord Abercromby
bo deposed to holding several conversations with the Earl of Mar: never
fi saw him under the influence of ardent spirits or any stupifying drug ;
4, for 300. on the contrary, he was cool and collected, and Lord Abercromby at-
tributed his retired habits and settled melancholy to his embarrassments.
yolier, and The grounds of defence were threefold :— First, concealment of the
5 in more fact that the earl used opium to a pernicious extent: Secondly, that it
s the com- was untrue that Lord Mar was temperate and took exercise; whereas
ffs. out of he was intemperate, and ~~ entary, and inactive in the extreme: Thirdly,
brs, 11000 that it was untruly stated his lordship was in good health at the date of
the policy, when, in point of fact, he was in unsound and broken health.
fo TeCOver. Witnesses were called to support the defence, but not to the satisfac-
o law gies tion of the jury, who found in favour of the pursuers (plaintiffs).
fh
gil Lanavze v. BENT AND OTHERS, K. B., June, 1830,
oo 0 Is a curious case, {ried in the Court of King’s Bench, London, but is
somewhat imperfectly reported.
