"We do not regard this right as property in any such light as to bring the case within the principle of the authorities upon the subject of a mingling of funds in the purchase or acquisition of other property. The right of a wife to insure the life of her husband for her own benefit is not property. It is more in the nature of a power or privilege to make a valid contract. It is a status and not a property right. The common law upon motives of public policy held that there must be what was termed 'insurable interest' in the life which was insured, or else the policy was a dangerous kind of wager, and therefore void. To take a policy out of such a class it was necessary to show that the insured had some interest in the continuance of the life of the cestui que vie. Who had such an interest as to give a right of insurance was frequently a matter of some discussion and of possible doubt. It may not even now perhaps be said that the precise nature, character and extent of the interest in another's life, which shall render that life insurable, have been formally and plainly laid down. It is said by the Federal Supreme Court that one essential is that the policy shall be obtained in good faith, and not for the purpose of speculating upon the hazard of a life in which the insured has no interest. Insurance Co. vs. Schaefer, 94 U. S., 457, 460. An interest which is insurable must be an interest in favor of the continuance of the life, and not an interest in its loss or destruction. If any person could be thought to have an interest in the continuance of the life of another, it would be a wife in the life of her husband. Judge Allen, in Baker vs. Insurance Co., 43 N. Y., 283, regarded the question as decided that a wife had at common law an insurable interest in the life of her husband. Judge Andrews held to the same effect in Brummer vs. Cohn, 86 N. Y., 11, 14. These cases favor the view that the statutes upon the subject of the insurance of the husband's life in favor of his wife, while it regulates, does not create the right. I do not intimate that, if the statute created the right, it would in any way alter its nature. That such a policy was valid at common law simply makes it clearer that it is the nature of the relationship between man and wife that makes the policy valid, and relieves it from the objection that it is a wager policy. That relationship is not property in any fair sense of the term. It creates an insurable interest in the life of another, of a nature the same as a parent has in a child or the child in a parent; that is, an interest in the preservation of the life, and not in its destruction. Being so circumstanced, a policy of insurance upon such life is not a wager policy, and is therefore a valid policy. It is the same question, but it may perhaps appear a little clearer when it is asked whether the power or privilege of a parent or child or creditor to insure the life of his parent or child or debtor is property. A man has an insurable interest in his own life. If he take trust funds and procure such insurance, has he thereby mingled those funds with other property, i. e., with his right to insure his own life? And can it be said that the policy is the product of such mingled funds and property, so that nothing but the original amount of the trust funds and interest can be recovered back from the estate ? The fact is apparent that a policy of insurance upon a life is not a policy of indemnity. The sum named in the policy is to be paid when the insured life has ceased, no matter how really valueless such life may have in the meantime become. The power of the wife to procure insurance is not in the least unfavorably affected by the fact that insurance in her favor has already been secured. As was said by Shaw, C. J., in Loomis vs. Insurance Co., 6 Gray, 396, the amount of the insurance is immaterial. The medium is computed, upon the law of averages, to be the exact equivalent for the risk. So, if insurance has been taken out by the husband on his life in the wife's name, she could herself take out more upon just as favorable terms, and just as expeditiously as if none had been taken. No one company might desire to go above a certain amount upon any one risk, but the ability to procure further insurance is practically unrestrained. The wife has, therefore, suffered no loss by the original procurement of this insurance, and its subsequent maintenance unknown to her, so long as the premiums have not been paid with her moneys or in any way from her estate. In other words, her property has not been used for any purpose. Her power to obtain valid insurance upon his life remained wholly unimpaired and unaffected by the insurance already obtained. The fact that she had what is termed an 'insurable interest' was only material for the purpose of upholding the validity of the insurance in question. I cannot see how it can be regarded as property in any event. That a life insurance policy has not the features of a contract of indemnity, and is not such a contract, has been unquestioned for a number of years. Rawls vs. Insurance Co., 27 N. Y., 282; Olmstead vs. Keyes, 85 N. Y., 593.

"The case of these policies is very much like that in Baker vs. Insurance Co., supra, where Judge Allen said the insurance was effected by the husband for the benefit of his wife, and as a provision for her in case of his death. It was there stated that the case would not be changed if the policy were regarded as having been procured by the wife, because the husband was in truth the actor, and represented the wife, and she, in claiming the benefits of the policy, necessarily ratified and confirmed the compact as it was made, and with all its terms and conditions. Therefore this case is to be looked at with reference to the fact that every dollar of the moneys which procured and maintained these policies in existence belonged to the firm represented by the plaintiff, and that Gilman had no more right to invest or use these funds in the manner he did than would any third person who had procured them without any right or title. It has been said that the husband, when he procures an insurance for his wife's benefit, acts as her agent, or represents her, and that she has a vested interest in the policies the moment they are delivered by force of the statute permitting them to be made in this form. Whitehead vs. Insurance Co., 102 N. Y., 143; 6 N. E. Hep., 267. This is doubtless true in the case of the husband procuring the insurance with funds which belong to him or his wife, but where the premiums are paid with moneys which in truth do not belong to him, and which the husband misapplies in so paying, and by which he violates his obligations to the true owner of the moneys thus used, the wife in such case must claim the policy subject to the means by which the husband procured, and she must adopt all his methods. The moneys in the hands of the company could not be recovered back by the cestui que trust if received by the company in good faith, because it would stand in the position of a bona fide purchaser, yet the policy itself would stand as the representative of these trust moneys, and the right of the wife would be to that extent subordinate. This principle has, in effect, been decided in New Jersey in the case of Shaler vs. Trowbridge, 28 N. J. Eq., 595. It was there held upon almost identical facts, that there was no public policy which favored the wife at the expense of the principle that trust funds could be followed, and that no profit could in any way arise in favor of the trustees who used them. It also held that the wife could not be permitted to avail herself of the proceeds of policies paid for by her husband with trust funds. It is true, in that case the policies were originally taken out in the name of the husband, and subsequently made payable to the wife, and it is urged that there is a difference in the two cases, because in the New Jersey case it was the husband's insurable interest which was insured, and then assigned, and that in this case it is the wife's interest which was originally insured; but we hold, upon the facts in this case, that the taking out of the policies in the name of the wife does not alter the principle as to trust funds. The cestui que trust is entitled to follow his funds, and to take the moneys or the policy at his option.