Reserve Mutual Insurance v. Kane

1. The liability of a child under the poor laws for the support of a parent, with the natural feelings of affection producing a desire to provide for the comfort of the parent, gives a right to the child to effect an insurance on the life of the parent. 2. A child has an insurable interest in the life of a parent. The relationship prevents an insurance on a parent’s life from being a gambling adventure.

Error to the District Court of Philadelphia: Of July Term 1874, No. 112. This was an action of debt, brought May 3d 1873, by James P. Kane against the Reserve Mutual Life Insurance Company, on a policy of insurance for $2000, issued April 1st 1872, by the defendants to the plaintiff, on the life of his father, John Kane. The case was tried April 15th 1874, before Briggs, J. The plaintiff gave evidence of the death of John Kane on the 26th of June 1872. The father had come from Ireland ; had lived in this country two or three years ; plaintiff paid $120 for bringing his father and family to this country ; $50 had been repaid him by the mother; the father intended to repay him, but had not; the father was a laborer; kept house from April to June 1872; was 55 years old when he died; left a widow, three sons and a daughter; the plaintiff paid through affection, but expected the father would have paid it had he lived; the money paid by him brought over the father, mother, brother's and sister-; he expected the father would compel the brothers to pay their passage-money back. The defendants’ points were, 1. If the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff was, at the execution of the policy of life insurance, an adult son of John Kane, then as such he had no insurable interest in the father’s life, and the verdict should be for the defendants. 2. If the jury find from the evidence that the plaintiff represented, at the time of his application, that he had an insurable interest in the life of John Kane, it is now incumbent upon him to satisfy the jury that he had such an interest, and if he has failed so to do, the verdict should be for the defendants. 3. Plantiff, as a creditor, can only recover in this case the amount of his outlay on behalf of his father. The court refused the points, and directed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of said policy, $2000, less six months’ premium unpaid, and for the interest, amounting to $2085.34. The jury so found. The defendants took a writ of error, and assigned the refusal of their points and the instruction of the court, for error.