The judgment of the court was entered May 18th, 1885. ^

— It must be conceded that on principles of law applicable to contracts generally, this judgment would be wrong.

The rule, however, applicable to this class of cases appears to rest on public policy which forbids gambling on the duration of human life. It is not sufficient that the sale and purchase of this policy may have been in good faith and with correct motives. The mischief resulting from a sale of the policy for purposes of speculating on human life is so contrary to the policy of the law, and so in conflict with the just principles of life insurance, that it is unsafe to relax the rule that the holder of the policy must have some pecuniary interest in the life of the person insured. Permitting the assignee to retain the sum he has paid to the person insured and to the company, with interest thereon, so far protected the assignee and enforced the rule based on public policy, as to give no just reason to complain.

Judgment affirmed.