........ Ely v. Spofford, 167 97 622 271 Co., Town of Fishkill v. 634 400 CASES IN Law and Equity IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. VALTON and ADAMS vs. THE NATIONAL LOAN FUND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY. Upon the deposition of a witness, taken on commission, being offered in evidence at the trial, the defendants objected, on the ground that two cross-interrogatories, one embracing nineteen questions and the other five, were unanswered in part, but in what respect they were unanswered was not specifically stated. After the deposition had been received and read, the same objection was renewed, and exception taken. Held, that it would be an unjustifiable exercise of discretion to suppress the entire deposition, upon such a vague and indefinite objection; and that the refusal to do so was no ground for a new tri HARRIS, J., dissented. It is only when the officer neglects to put the interrogatories, as settled, or when the witness refuses to answer, that the deposition will be suppressed, on the ground of the commission having been imperfectly executed. Where a witness has not been impeached, nor any foundation laid for his impeachment, by showing contradictory statements made by him as to a material fact, and he has not been interrogated as to what he said in a particular conversation, proof of declarations made by him on that occasion, in the absence of the party by whom he is called, cannot be received. HARRIS, J., dissented. Valton v. National Loan Fund Life Assurance Society. Where an individual makes a contract of life insurance, in his own name, the legal presumption is that the policy is for his benefit, and not for that of any other person. A person has an insurable interest in his own life; and no use made by the assured, of the policy, subsequent to the contract of insurance, will convert it into a wager policy. If valid in its inception, he may dispose of it as he pleases. HARRIS, J., dissented. There can be no wager policy, within the statute, unless the contract of insurance is made with a party who has no insurable interest in the life insured. The term can never apply when the policy is issued to the party whose life is insured, and when thus the contract is made directly with him. HARRIS, J., dissented. It is only when an insurance contract falls within the category of a mere wager or bet a simple gaming adventure-that the statute against wagers can, even by construction, apply. It is always a question of legal construction, whether an insurance contract comes within the purview of the statute. Where a party insures his own life, even if it be for the benefit of another, the latter advancing the money to pay the premium, such contract is not void for the reason that the statute against betting and gaming has been violated; it seems. Per WRIGHT, J. Where M. V. & S. formed a partnership, the capital being furnished by M. and V.; and S. although advancing no capital, was to share equally in the profits on account of his skill in the business, but in lieu of capital, on the part of S., and as an indemnity to his copartners, an insurance was effected on his life, with the understanding that if he should die, unmarried, during the continuance of the partnership, the benefit of the policy should go to the survivors of the firm; Held that although M. urged the making of the contract, and aided in its successful completion, yet as the insurance was effected by S. in his own name, and not as the agent of M. and V. or for their exclusive benefit, but for the benefit, in part at least, of S., the policy was not void as being a wager policy. HARRIS, J., dissented. THIS HIS cause was tried before Mr. Justice WRIGHT, at the Albany circuit in November, 1852. The action was upon a policy of insurance in the sum of $10,000, effected on his own life by Conrad Schumacher, late a liquor merchant of the city of Albany. The complaint alleged the making of the contract of insurance between the deceased and the defendants, and the issuing of a policy to the assured in the month of May, 1850, to continue in force through his life or so long as he should continue to pay a premium of $68.75, in advance, on or before each successive quarter day. The complaint also alleged |