Sec 455

By the statute 19 Geo. II. c. 37, s. 1, marine insurances, without interest in the thing insured, are void as far as concerns British ships.2 Hence to entitle a party on such an insurance to recover, he must prove his interest, and can recover only what is his real loss.3 The parties, however, may bind themselves to value the insured interest at a specific figure;4 and in case of total loss, the insured can recover the full extent of this valuation, though no more.5 "Where the loss is partial, the insured recovers pro tanto on the agreed value.6

Sec 456

By the statute 4 Geo. III. c. 48, life insurances without interest are void; though under this statute it is sufficient if there was an insurable interest at the time of effecting the insurance.7 As insurable interests are regarded the interest a person has in his own life, or in that of his wife, or, in the case of a wife, in that of a husband;8 the interest a creditor has in his debtor's life;9 the interest an employee has in the life of an employer;10 though not the interest a parent has in a child's life, unless the parent be in some way dependent on the child.11

Sec 457

A fire insurance, without an insurable interest, is void in England, both as a wagering contract and as prohibited by 14 Geo. III. c. 48. But as having insurable interests have been regarded carriers or other bailees, if responsible for losses by fire;1 and trustees, assignees, and caretakers, responsible to the real owner.2 sec 458. With gambling contracts may be associated contracts to violate lottery laws. When a statute makes lotteries illegal, all contracts to carry on lotteries, or of which lotteries form part of the consideration, are void.3 A lottery, however, to be within the purview of the statutes, must be a distribution of prizes by chance among parties invited to buy shares, and does not include contracts between two or more individuals to settle a disputed issue by lot. But a distribution of prizes by chance among all invited to buy shares, this not being in pursuance of a prior arrangement between them, is a lottery, no matter how artfully the scheme may be disguised. Thus, in an action in New York, in 1876, the defendant to a suit for goods sold, consisting of candies and silverware, claimed that they were to be used in a lottery. The candies were put up by the plaintiff in packages, known as prize candy packages, in some of which there were tickets, each with the name of a piece of silverware on it. The defendants intended to sell the packages for more than their value, the purchaser taking the chance of getting a package containing a ticket. It was ruled that this was a lottery under the statute, and that the plaintiff could not recover.4 Nor does it affect the question that in the scheme there are no blanks.5

By statute marine insurances without interest void.

So of insurances of life.

And so of fire insurances.

1 Brunswick v. Valleau, 50 Iowa, 120; supra, sec 343.

2 See, as to this limitation, Allkins v. Jupe, L. R. 2 C. P. D. 375.

3 Leake, 2d ed. 753: Seagrave v. Ins. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 305; Ebsworth v. Ins. Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 596. That the principle of this statute is part of the common law in Pennsylvania, see Pritchett v. Ins. Co., 3 Yeates, 458.

4 Ibid.; Irving v. Manning, 6 C. B. 391; Barker v. Janson, L. R. 3 C. P.

303; Lidgett v. Secretan, L. R. 6 C. P. 616.

5 Ibid.; Bousfield v. Barnes, 4 Camp. 228; Bruce v. Jones, 1 H. & C. 769.

6 Lewis v. Rucker, 2 Burr. 1167; Denoon v. Ins. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 341.

7 Dalby v. Ins. Co., 15 C. B. 365.

8 Leake, 2d ed. 755.

9 Downes v. Green, 12 M. & W. 481.

10 Hebdon v. West, 3 B. & S. 579.

11 Halford v. Kymer, 10 B. & C. 724; Worthingtou v. Curtis, L. R. 1 C. D. 419.