1165 LEGAL CASES DECIDED ON 
The purchaser’s widow, the plaintiff, brought the present action to 
recover back the purchase-money, on the ground that the policy, when 
sold, was worth nothing, or about to become worth nothing. 
From the report, it does not appear very clearly why the plaintiff re- 
sorted to the action : for it seems that a witness, from the Pelican office, 
proved that the office was not in the habit of inquiring whether there 
was any continuing interest or not, but of paying when the event hap- re 
pened. 
Lord Tenterden left it to the jury to say whether there was any mis- i 
representation or concealment on the part of the defendant at the time 
of the sale ; and the jury, being of opinion there was not, found for the 
defendant. i 
An application was made for a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground A 
that the defendant knew, at the time of sale, that the interest was about (r 
to cease, and, consequently, that the liability of the office was about to 
cease also, and there was no evidence that he communicated that cir- ou 
cumstance to the purchaser, and this was a concealment. The witness Teg 
from the office proved that they made no inquiry whether the interest ai 
continued or not, but paid on the event; but it was contended they were 
not bound to do so, and that the practice was illegal. b 
By the Court. The purchaser, whether he made inquiries or not, 
meant to take his chance of payment by the office: and as the jury ne- ol 
gatived any fraud or concealment, the defendant was not bound to pol 
refund the price. a 
The decision in ¢ Barber v. Morris’ is altogether a remarkable one. ver 
It is abundantly clear that, if the defendant Morris had continued to i 
hold the policy, he could not, in point of law, after the decision in Mr. 
Pitt’s case, have succeeded against the insurers; and the assignment to 
Barber must, therefore, have been a mere nullity. The Court were of 
opinion that the purchase was speculative, Barber being content to run 
all risks : nothing of the kind, however, appears from the report as given 
in evidence. 
Havrorp v. KyMER, 10 B. and C., 722. (1831). 
By a policy of assurance, dated the 13th of February, 1826, the 
directors of the Asylum Life Insurance Company agreed with the plain- 
tiff to insure the life of R. B. Halford, the son of the plaintiff, in the . 
sum of 50007. for the term of two years, and covenanted that, if the said 
R. B. Halford should die at any time within the term of two years, to be = 
computed from the day of the date of the policy, the funds of the Company 
should be liable to pay, within eight calendar months, after proof of the 
death of the said R. B. Halford within the said term of two years, to 
the plaintiff, the sum of 50001. 5 
Plea, first, that at the time of making the policy the plaintiff was not 2 
interested in the life of the said R. B. Halford. 
A poy