 | George Richards - 1892 - 710 sider
...its terms a contract for indemnity only. But that is not the nature of what is termed an assurance for life ; it really is what it is on the face of...duration of the life, is not prohibited by the statute 14 G. Ill, c. 48. Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, 1881. EAYNEE v.... | |
 | Charles Burke Elliott - 1895 - 166 sider
...its terms, a contract for indemnity only. But that is not the nature of what is termed an 'assurance for life.' It really is what it is on the face of...the life, is not prohibited by the statute 14 Geo. HI. c. 48." Cousins v. Nantes, 3 Taunt. 513. Craufurd v. Hunter, 8 Term R. 13, 4 Rev. Reports, 576.... | |
 | Joseph Asbury Joyce - 1897 - 1008 sider
...the assured value his interest at its true amount when he makes the contract," and that the contract "really is what it is on the face of it, a contract...certain sum in the event of death. It is valid at the common law, and if it is made by a person having an interest in the duration of the life, it is... | |
 | Byron Kosciusko Elliott, William Frederick Elliott - 1905 - 1368 sider
...are perfectly consistent with the rule that a contract of life insurance is not an indemnity but is a contract to pay a certain sum in the event of death. But it is evident that it is not consistent with the proposition that such insurance is a mere indemnity.... | |
 | Charles Burke Elliott - 1907 - 688 sider
...contract of life insurance in no way resembled a contract of indemnity." It was said that such a contract "really is what it is on the face of it, a contract...certain sum in the event of death. It is valid at the common law, and if it is made by a person having an interest in the duration of the life it is... | |
 | William Gilbert Davies - 1907 - 382 sider
...life policy was not in its nature a contract of indemnity, but was what it purports to be on its face, a contract to pay a certain sum in the event of death, and this doctrine has been adopted in this State, in the case of Rawles vs. Ins. Co. (27 NY, 282).... | |
 | William Frederick Elliott - 1913 - 1292 sider
...that a contract of life insurance is not a contract of indemnity.70 It was said that such a contract "really is what it is on the face of it, — a contract...person having an interest in the duration of the life, it is not prohibited by the statute." It is unnecessary to discuss the reasons which have led most... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1913 - 1140 sider
...its terms, a contract for indemnity only. But that is not the nature of what is termed an assurance for life; it really is what it is on the face of it, a contract to pay a certain sum ÍD the event of death. It is valid at common law ; and, if it is made by a person having an interest... | |
 | 1877 - 966 sider
...its terms a contract for indemnity only. But that is not the nature of what is termed an assurance for life ; it really is what it is on the face of...person having an interest in the duration of the life, it is not prohibited by the statute." As thus interpreted we might almost regard the English statute... | |
| |
Lord Mansfield was speaking of a policy against marine risks, which is in its terms a contract for indemnity only. But that is not of the nature of what is termed an assurance for life; it really is what it is on the face of it, — a contract to pay... 
