Crosswell v. Connecticut Indemnity Ass'n

Citations

• 51 S.C. 103
• 28 S.E. 200
• 1897 S.C. LEXIS 63

Syllabus

<p>1. INSURANCE. — Any person may insure Lis own life for the benefit of one who has no insurable interest in his life, if the transaction is not a cover, to evade the law against wager policies.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Assignment.—An assignment of a life insurance policy, valid in its inception, by the assured and the beneficiary, with consent of the insurer, to one not having an insurable interest in the life, is valid, if not a device to.evade the law as to wager policies. Cases considered.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — InsurabdE Interest. — A son has an insurable interest in the life of his mother, from the mere fact of such relationship, which, if nothing more appears, will support an assignment by the beneficiary to him of a policy procured by the mother on her own life for the benefit of the daughtér.</p> <p>4. Evidence — Insurance.—An assignee of an insurance policy may testify that he had paid premiums on the policy before assignment.</p> <p>5. Charge. — Complaint substantially alleged as stated in the charge.</p> <p>6. Ibid. — Insurance.—-Portions of the charge excepted to properly state the law of insurance applicable to this case.</p> <p>7. Ibid. — Failure to charge a specific proposition is not reversible error, in absence of such request.</p> <p>8. Ibid.- — Requests properly refused, because, as framed, they were not applicable to the issues.</p>