Even where the rule that innocent misrepresentation does not avoid a contract was most rigidly adhered to at common law, there were two great classes of exceptions thereto: one class of contracts being an exception to this rule on account of the peculiar nature of the subject-matter; the other being an exception on account of the peculiar relations between the parties thereto. Of the first class of contracts, insurance was the most conspicuous example. It was said to be a contract uberrima fidei, of superabundant good faith, and one which would be avoided by a material misrepresentation even if innocent. This rule originally applied to marine insurance,1 but it seems now to be applicable to insurance of all kinds,2 such as guaranty insurance,3 fire insurance,4 and life insurance.5 A misrepresentation as to the age of the insured,6 renders the policy voidable. If an applicant for life insurance states in his application that he has never been rejected by any other company and such statement is not true, the insurance company may have such policy cancelled in equity before loss thereon.7

New York. Stitt v. Little, 63 N. Y. 427; Daly v. Wise, 132 N. Y. 306, 16 L. R. A. 236, 30 N. E. 837.

Oklahoma. Guthrie National Bank v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 14 Okla. 636, 79 Ac. 102.

Pennsylvania. Sankey v. Bank, 78 Pa. St. 48; Weasels v. Weiss, 156 Pa. St. 591,27 Atl. 535.

2 South Branch Lumber Co. v. Ott, 142 U. S. 622, 35 L. ed. 1136; In re Roalswick, 110 Fed. 639; Johnston v. Bent, 93 Ala. 160, 9 So. 581; Weasels v. Weiss, 156 Pa. St. 591, 27 Atl. 535.

3 Taylor v. Ford, 131 Cal. 440, 63 Ac. 770;.Scroggin v. Wood, 87 la. 497, 54 N. W. 437; Stone v. Robie, 66 Vt. 245, 29 Atl. 257.

4 Spitze v. R. R., 75 Md. 162, 32 Am. St. Rep. 378, 23 Atl. 307.

5 Dorsey v. Watkins, 151 Fed. 340.

6 Daly v. Wise, 132 N. Y. 306, 16 L. R. A. 236, 30 N. E. 837.

1 1onides v. Pender, L. R., 9 Q. B. 531.

2 England. Seaton v. Heath (1899), 1 Q. B. 782; Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. L. Cas. 484.

Alabama. Capital City Ins. Co. v. Autrey, 105 Ala. 269, 53 Am. St. Rep. 121, 17 So. 326.

Georgia. Supreme Conclave Knights v. Wood, 120 Ga. 328, 47 S. E. 940.

Illinois. Security Trust Co. v. Tarpey, 182 111. 52, 54 N. E. 1041 [affirming, 80 111. App. 378].

Iowa. Glade v. Ins. Co., 56 la. 400, 9 N. W. 320.

Maine. Gould v. Ins. Co., 47 Me. 403, 74 Am. Dec. 494.

Maryland. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Keating, 86 Md. 130, 63 Am. St. Rep. 499, 38 Atl. 29; Bankers' Life Ins. Co. v. Miller, 100 Md. 1, 59 Atl. 116.

Massachusetts. Hayward v. Ins. Co., C4 Mass. (10 Cush.) 444; Campbell v. Ins. Co., 98 Mass. 381; Ring v. Assurance Co., 145' Mass. 426, 14 N. . 525; Dolan y. Life Association, 173 Mass. 197, 53 N. E. 398.

Michigan. Malicki v. Life Society, 119 Mich. 151, 77 N. W. 690; Bonewell v. North American Accident Ins. Co., 167 Mich. 274, 132 N. W. 1067 [affirming on rehearing, Bonewell v. North American Accident Ins. Co., 160 Mich. 137, 125 N. W. 59].

Nebraska. Seal v. Ins. Co., 59 Neb. 253, 80 N. W. 807.

New York. Armour v. Ins. Co., 90 N. Y. 450.

Ohio. Byers v. Ins. Co., 35 O. S. 606.

Tennessee. Supreme Lodge v. Dickson, 102 Tenn. 255, 52 S. W. 862.

Washington. Miller v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., 69 Wash. 529, 125 Ac. 782.

Wisconsin. Ryan v. Ins. Co., 46 Wis. 671, 1 N. W. 426.

3 England. Seaton v. Heath (1899), 1 Q. B. 782.

United States. Carroll ton, etc., Co. v. Indemnity Co., 115 Fed. 77, 52 C. C. A. 671.

Illinois. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. First National Bank, 233 111. 475, 84 N. E. 670.

Kentucky. Bank of Hardinsburg & Trust Co. v. American Bonding Co., 153 Ky. 579, 156 S. W. 394.

Louisiana. Max J. Winkler Brokerage Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 119 La. 735, 44 So. 449.

Massachusetts. Glidden v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 198 Mass. 109, 84 N. . 143.

4 Capital City Ins. Co. v. Autrey, 105 Ala. 269, 53 Am. St. Rep. 121, 17 So. 326; Planters,' etc., Ins. Co. v. Loyd, 67 Ark. 584, 77 Am. St. Rep. 136, 56 S. W. 44; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Keating, 86 Md. 130, 63 Am. St. Rep. 499, 38 Atl. 29.

5 Alabama. Triple Link, etc., Association v. Williams, 121 Ala. 138, 77 Am. St. Rep. 34, 26 So. 19.

Illinois. Security Trust Co. v. Tar-pey, 182 111. 52, 54 N. E. 1041 [affirming, 80 111. App. 378].

Kentucky. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Quinn, 130 Ky. 397, 113 S. W. 456.

Maryland. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mullen, 107 Md. 457, 69 Atl. 385.

Massachusetts. Dolan v. Life Association, 173 Mass. 197, 53 N. E. 398.

Michigan Malicki v. Life Society, 119 Mich. 151, 77 N. W. 690.

Mississippi. Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Miazza, 93 Miss. 18, 46 So. 817.

North Dakota. Satterlee v. Modern Brotherhood, 15 N. D. 92, 106 N. W. 561.

Tennessee. Supreme Lodge v. Dickson, 102 Tenn. 255, 52 S. W. 862.

6 Logia Suprema v. de Aguirre, 14 Ariz. 390, 129 Ac. 503.

7 Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Glaser, 245 Mo. 377, 45 L. R. A. (N.S.) 222, 150 S. W. 549.

The common-law rule concerning insurance contracts is modified in many jurisdictions by statutes which provide that representations must be wilfully false and fraudulently made to avoid the policy issued thereon.8 Under such statutes an innocent misrepresentation,9 as innocent overvaluation of the property insured,10 or an innocent misstatement as to the number of brothers and sisters of the insured and as to the number alive, the insured being absent from home for many years and knowing little about his family, and the insurer knowing the latter fact,11 does not avoid the policy. An answer by the insured as to the condition of his health with reference to organic diseases is not ground for avoiding an insurance policy if he gives the information which his physician has given to him and upon which he relies.12 A statute which is applicable to ordinary life insurance companies is not applicable to companies which insure on the assessment plan.13 It is said that a statute which provides that a misrepresentation shall not avoid a policy unless it is material does not apply to a suit to set the policy aside which is brought in the lifetime of the insured.14 Other statutes provide that the representation will avoid the contract if fraudulent or material.15 A statute of the latter type does not probably change the common-law rule as to misrepresentations.16 Such provisions, however, do not apply to actual fraud,17 or to conditions precedent.18 Under some statutes a misrepresentation as to age does not avoid the policy, but restricts the amount of recovery to the amount of insurance which could have been bought for the premium which was actually paid at the true age of the insured.19 By statute a misrepresentation in the application may have no effect upon the policy if such application is not attached to the policy.20 Under a statute which provides that if the medical examiner of the insurance company recommended the risk, a false statement by the insured as to his health shall not avoid the policy unless such recommendation was obtained by the fraud of the insured, it is necessary, in order to avoid the policy, to show that the insured had an intent to deceive, and that the examiner relied on the false statements of the insured or his wilful non-disclosure.21 A statute which provides that a misrepresentation by which an insurance policy is obtained shall not be regarded as material unless it actually contributed to cause the loss, has no application to a misrepresentation as to the identity of the person who is substituted for the applicant at physical examination.22

8 No attempt can be made to state and analyze the statutes of the different states which express the same general purpose in different forms. See also Sec. 222.

9 John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Warren, 181 U. S. 73, 45 L. ed. 755 [affirming, John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Warren, 59 O. S. 45, 51 N. E. 546]; Fidelity, etc., Association v. Jeffords, 107 Fed. 402, 53 L. R. A. 193; Welch v. Ins. Co., 117 la. 394, 90 N. W. 828.

10 Atlas Ins. Co. v. Robison, 94 Ark. 390, 127 S. W. 456.

11 Coplin v. Woodmen, 105 Miss. 115, 62 So. 7.

12 Blackman v. United States Casualty Co., 117 Tenn. 578, 103 S. W. 784.

13 FrankJin Life Ins. Co. v. American Nat. Bank, 74 Ark. 1, 84 S. W. 789.

14 Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Glaser, 245 Mo. 377, 150 S. W. 549.

15 United States. Miller v. Maryland Casualty Co., 193 Fed. 343, 113 C. C. A. 267.

Alabama. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 174 Ala. 511, 56 So. 568.

Kentucky. United States Casualty Co. v. Campbell, 148 Ky. 554, 146 S. W. 1121.

Massachusetts. Ring v. Assurance Co., 145 Mass. 426, 14 N. E. 525; Durkee v. Ins. Co., 159 Mass. 514, 34 N. E. 1133; Langdeau v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 194 Mass. 56, 80 N. E. 452; Everson v. General Accident Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 202 Mass. 169, 88 N. E. 658.

Pennsylvania. Hermany v. Life Association, 151 Pa. St. 17, 24 Atl. 1064; March v. Ins. Co., 186 Pa. St. 629, 65 Am. St. Rep. 887, 40 Atl. 1100; Keatley v. Ins. Co., 187 Pa. St. 197, 40 Atl. 808.

Texas. Northwestern Life Association v. Findley, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 494, 68 S. W. 695.

Virginia. Modern Woodmen v. Law-son, 110 Va. 81, 65 S. E. 509.