after the policy * was made he died of fever; but the insurers proved, that some years before the policy was made, he tion of the lungs.' Again, it is obvious that the insurance company meant to guard against the disease of dysentery. Now, a man may have had the dysentery, and been cured of it; still the office should know of it; and, indeed, that disorder may have been mentioned by name, as being one of a nature likely to return. All these instances show that it was not intended to restrict the statement of the assured to disorders having a tendency to shorten life at the moment of executing the policy; what the company demanded was, a security against the existence of such diseases in the frame. There must, therefore, be a new trial." Rolfe, B.: "I have no doubt, that if a man had spit blood from his lunge, no matter in how small a quantity, or even had spit blood from an ulcerated sore throat, he would be bound to state it. The fact should be made known to the office, in order that their medical adviser might make inquiry into its cause." In Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. L. Cas. 484, 24 Eng. L. & Eq. 1, determined finally by the House of Lords, the assured proposed his life for insurance, and signed "a proposal," which contained his answers to twenty-seven questions. The 21st and 22d were as follows: "21. Did any of the party's near relations die of consumption, or any other pulmonary complaint? Answer, No." "22d. Has the party's life been accepted or refused at any office? etc. Answer, No." The proposal also contained the following agreement: "I hereby agree that the particulars mentioned in the above proposal, shall form the basis of the contract between the assured and the company; and if there be any fraudulent concealment or untrue allegation contained therein, or any circumstance material to this insurance shall not have been fully communicated to the said company, or there shall be any fraud or misstatement, all money which shall have been paid on account of this insurance shall become forfeited, and the policy be void." The policy contained a warranty on the part of the assured as to most of the facts replied to in the proposal, but those as to questions 21 and 22 were omitted therein. It then provided, that the policy should be null and void, and all moneys paid by the assured forfeited, upon his dying, in certain enumerated modes, or if anything so warranted as aforesaid shall not be true, or if any circumstance material to this insurance shall not have been truly stated, or shall have been misrepresented or concealed, or shall not have been fully and fairly disclosed and communicated to the said company, or if any fraud shall have been practised upon the said company, or any false statement made to them in or about the obtaining or effecting of this insurance. The answers to questions 21 and 22 were proved to be untrue. It was held by the House of Lords, reversing the decisions of the Courts of Exchequer and Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, that the judge was wrong in directing the jury, that if they found the statements both false and material, they should find the verdict for the defendant; and that the questions which the judge ought to have left to the jury were, first, Were the statements false? and, secondly, Were they made in obtaining or effecting the policy? The ground of the decision was, that the insurers had stipulated that the policy should be void, unless the assured should answer certain questions correctly, and thereby excluded the question of materiality. Lord St. Leonards, in opposition to Baron Parke and Lord Brougham, thought the words "false statement" in the connection, meant a statement untrue within the knowledge of the party making it, and not merely one which was in fact untrue, - but, on the ground that a circumstance material to the insurance had not been truly stated, concurred in the motion. See Duckett v. Williams, 2 Cromp. & M. 348, 4 Tyrw. 240. In this case it was agreed in the declaration signed by the assured previous to effecting the policy, that if any untrue averment was contained therein, or if the facts required to be set forth in the proposal annexed were not truly stated, the premiums should be forfeited, and the assurance absolutely null and void. The statement as to the health of the life, was untrue in point of fact, but not to the knowledge of the party making it. It was held, that the want of knowledge was immaterial, and the premiums were forfeited. It being provided in the conditions of insurance that any untrue or fraudulent allegation made in effecting the insurance will render the policy void; it was held, that the representation by the insured that he was a farmer, whereas he was at the time a slave-taker by occupation, rendered the policy void, and it is not material that his death was not occasioned by his business of slave-taking. Hartman v. Keystone Ins. Co. 21 Penn. State, 466, 476.

We have seen, that in marine policies the ship, if possible, and in fire policies the building always, are examined by the insurers or their agents. This is carried much further in life policies. Not only is it asked what physician attended the life-insured, -and this question must be answered by the name of every physician consulted as such, although he were in common parlance a quack; (o)1 and questions may be and often are put to the physicians named, - but life insurance companies have their own physician regularly appointed, whose business it is to make careful personal inspection of the life-insured. And as it has been said in respect to fire policies, that the examination of a building by the insurers, throws upon them much responsibility for any infirmities which they could detect, we apprehend that this principle should apply at least with equal force to life policies.

A question is now usually or always asked as to the habits of the person, in regard to the use of intoxicating liquors. This question is variously phrased; but, whatever language is used, it must be construed with reasonable reference to its intention, and this intention must be to confine the insurance to persons who are temperate; and there must always be a wide debatable ground between temperance and total abstinence. (p) 2 A negative answer to such a question as, Have you ever been subject to fits? would not be falsified by having had one fit. But if the question were, Have you ever had a fit? a single fit would falsify a negative. (q)1 But even then, we apprehend, the materiality of the fact would be taken into consideration; that is, for example, the policy would not be defeated by proof that the life-insured, long years before, and when a teething child, had a fit.