Some of the conditions of policies of, life insurance are peculiar to this class of insur ance. Among the most important of these are those relating to self-destruction and in sanity. The risk in life insurance is the death of the insured proceeding from causes other than his voluntary act; Supreme Com mandery of the Knights of the Golden Rule v. Ainsworth, 71 Ala. 436, 46 Am. Rep. 332.
See SUICIDE.
Entering the military service is also usu ally stipulated against, but death at the hands of a roving band of thieves and rob bers, while engaged as an engineer in build ing a bridge, under the direction of a mili tary commander, is not within such a stipu lation; Welts v. Life Ins. Co., 48 N. Y. 34, 8 Am. Rep. 518; but even an involuntary en trance will defeat a recovery ; Dillard v. Ins. Co., 44 Ga. 119, 9 Am. Rep. 167.
The receipt of the premium by the insurer, after a known violation of the condition against residence abroad, Is a waiver of the right to a forfeiture ; Bevin v. Ins. Co., 23 Conn. 244 ; whether the knowledge be actual or constructive ; L. R. 11 Eq. 197. Where a condition against absence from home be yond a stipulated time is violated, the in sured will be excused if he be detained by reason of illness occurring within the time specified; Baldwin v. Ins. Co., 3 Bosw. (N. Y.) 530; but not where the illness occurs after the limits of the stipulation ; Nightin gale v. Ins. Co., 5 R I. 38. Where the con tract restricts the insured to the settled lim its of the United States, it covers all regions within the boundaries of the country, wheth er inhabited or not ; Casler v. Ins. Co., 22 N. Y. 427 ; and a permission to travel by sea in "a first rate vessel" will cover any mode of travel whether by cabin or steerage; Taylor v. Ins. Co., 13 Gray (Mass.) 434.
Equity cannot cancel a life insurance pol icy for fraud, if brought after death; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Griesa, 156 Fed. 398 ; but if brought before the death, it does not abate on the death of the insured; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Blair, 130 Fed. 971.
Where the insured commits murder, and thereafter assigns a policy on his life and is executed for his crime, his beneficiaries can-. not recover on the policy ; Burt v. Ins. Co., 187 U. S. 362, 23 Sup. Ct. 139, 47 L. Ed. 216;
death legal execution for crime is not a risk contemplated by the policy; Northwest ern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McCue, 223 U. S. 234, 32 Sup. Ct. 220, 56 L. Ed. 419, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 57; Collins v. Ins. Co., 30 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 257; citing many cases; so where the assignee of a policy causes the death of the assured by felonious means; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591, 6 Sup. Ct. 877, 29 L. Ed. 997 ; where the assignee of a beneficiary has murdered the assured, a constructive trust is established for the heirs of the assured; Schmidt v. Life Ass'n, 112 Ia. 41, 83 N. W. 800, 51 L. R. A. 141, 84 Am. St. Rep. 323. Where the insured is convicted and executed for a crime of which he is in fact innocent, insurance on his life is like wise unrecoverable ; Burt v. Ins. Co., 105 Fed. 419, 44 C. C. A. 548. But recovery can be had for death of the insured, slain by the husband with whose wife insured was com mitting adultery ; Supreme Lodge K. P. v. Crenshaw, 129 Ga. 195, 58 S. E. 628, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 258, 121 Am. St. Rep. 216, 12 Ann. Cas. 307.
The weight of decision has been in favor of the view, that the contract of life insur ance between citizens of different states is not dissolved, but only suspended, by a war between the states; Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 9 Blatchf. 234, Fed. Cas. No. 5,986 ; Semmes v. Ins. Co., 13 Wall. (U. S.) 159, 20 L. Ed. 490; but, contra, New York Life Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24, 23 L. Ed. 789.
Tontine. A system of insurance which under various forms is based upon the idea of a loan or investment of property for the benefit of a number of persons, the income at first being divided among all and the shares of members who die passing not to their own legal represdntatives but to in crease the interest of the surviving member, until, at last, after the number of members has gradually diminished by successive deaths, the last survivor takes the whole in come, or, if such be the terms agreed upon, the whole principal. The system took its name from Lorenzo Tonti, an Italian of the seventeenth century, who first conceived the idea and put it in practice. Merlin, Repert.; Dalloz, Diet. ; Schriber v. Rapp, 5 Watts (Pa.) 351, 30 Am. Dec. 327.