Reserve Mutual Ins. Co. v. Kane

• Decision Date: 06 March 1876
• Citation: 81 Pa. 154
• Parties: Reserve Mutual Insurance Co. <I>versus</I> Kane.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 154

81 Pa. 154

Reserve Mutual Insurance Co. versus Kane.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

February 18, 1876.

March 6, 1876.

February 18th 1876.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and WOODWARD, JJ.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of July Term 1874, No. 112 H. M. Dechert, for plaintiffs in error, as to first assignment, cited: Dalby v. India Life Insurance Co., 15 C. B. 365; Shilling v. Accidental Death Insurance Co., 2 H. & N. 42; Ruse v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 23 N. Y. 516; Lord v. Dall, 12 Mass. 115; 3 Kent's Com. 268; Halford v. Kymer, 10 B. & C. 724; Bunyon 16; Dowderwell on Life Insurance 19; Shilling v. Accidental Death Insurance Co., 27 L. J. Exch. 16; Miller v. Ins. Co., 2 E. D. Smith 268; Mitchell v. Union Life Ins. Co., 45 Me. 104; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind. R. 116; Loomis v. Ins. Co., 6 Gray 396; Stevens v. Warren, 101 Mass. 564; American Ins. Co. v. Robertshaw, 2 Casey 189; Bevin v. Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 23 Conn. 244; Cammack v. Lewis, 15 Wallace 643; Fox v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 4 Bigelow Life R. 485; Pritchet v. Insurance Co. of North America, 3 Yeates 458; Craig v. Murgatroyd, 4 Yeates 168; Adams v. Penna. Ins. Co., 1 Rawle 106; Delaware Ins. Co. v. Archer, 3 Id. 223; Ellmaker v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 6 W. & S. 439; Edgell v. McLaughlin. 6 Whart. 176.

If the interest relied upon be that of a creditor, then the policy must be reasonably proportioned to the amount of the indebtedness, and will not be good beyond that amount: American Life Ins. Co. v. Robertshaw; Fox v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra.

D. C. Harrington, for defendant in error.—Parents and children have insurable interests in each other's lives: Loomis v. Eagle Life Ins. Co., 6 Gray 396. So sister and brother: Lord v. Dall, 12 Mass. 115; Mitchell v. Union Life Ins. Co., 45 Me. 104; Trenton Mutual Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 4 Zabriskie 576; Bunyon 23; Barker v. Morris, 1 Moo. & R. 66; Bevin v. Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 23 Conn. 251.

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, March 6th 1876, PER CURIAM.

By the 28th section of the Poor Law of June 13th 1876, the father and grandfather, and the mother and grandmother, and the children and grandchildren of every poor person not able to work, shall, at their own charge, being of sufficient ability, relieve and maintain such poor person, at such rate as the Court of Quarter Sessions of the proper county shall order and direct. Maintenance of a father or mother unable to work is, therefore, a legal liability. When we add to this the feelings of natural affection and the desire produced by these feelings to provide for the comforts of parents, the right to effect an insurance on the life of the parent, to carry out these purposes, ought not to be denied. It would be technical in the extreme to say that a son has no insurable interest in his father's life. Poverty may overtake the father in his lifetime, and thus both father and mother be cast upon the son; or if the father die before her, the necessity may fall at once upon the son. Why then should he not be permitted to make a provision, by insurance, to reimburse himself for his outlays, past or future? What injury is done to the...