ASSIGNABILITY OF POLICY

Manhattan Life Insurance Co. v. Hennesey, 39 C. C. A. 625; Cawthorn v. Perry, 76 Texas, 383; Strode r. Meyer Bros. DrugCo., 101 Mo. App. 627; Gilbert v. Moose, 104 Pa. 74; Hendricks v. Reeves, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 545; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. O'Brien, 92 Mich. 584; Culver v. Guyer, 129 Ala. 622, Price v. Supreme Lodge K. of H., 68 Texas 361; Morris v. Sav. & Bkg. Co., 109 Ga. 12; Hays v. Lapeyre, 48 La. Ann. 749; First Nat. Bank v. Terry, 99 Va. 194; Schonfeld v. Turner, 75 Texas, 324; Stoelker v. Thornton, 88 Ala. 241; Heusner v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 47 Mo. App. 336; Quinn v. Supreme Council C. K. of A.. 99 Tenn 80; Brown v. Equitable Life, 75 Minn., 412; Mich. Mutual v. Rolfe, 76 Mich., 146; Quillian i1. Johnson, 122 Ga. 49; Evans v. Moore, 28 Ohio L. C. i; Bramblett v. Hargis* Ex'x, 94 S. W. 20. The assignment has been similarly con strued v.'here only a part of the interest is assigned. Thus in the case of Spies v. Stikes, 112 Ala. 584, where the insured, who was in ill health and unable to pay the dues and assessments, assigned to a stranger a fifth interest in the policy on condition that he pay all future dues and assessments, which expenditures would later be refunded, it was held that assignee could secure nothing out of the proceeds of the policy except reimbursement for dues and assessments paid. This decision was fol lowed in Baird v. Sharp, 100 Ky. 606. Somewhat closely allied to this theory is the one which considers the assignment valid provided the amount paid or likely to be paid is not inconsiderable compared with the amount which the assignee is to secure under the policy. The difficulty in the application of this latter theory being in the determination of what constitutes a disproportion in the two amounts. In an extreme case it is easy, as for instance where a policy of $3000.00 is assigned abso lutely for $70.00, as in the case of Cammack v. Lewis, supra, the courts would have no difficulty in determining that there is a

233

disproportion between the. two amounts. The same is true of an assignment for $65.00 of a policy for $2000.00 on which $185.00 in premiums have been paid, as in Downey v. Hoffer, 110 Pa. 109; or an assign ment of a policy of $2000.00, on which $356.00. in premiums have been paid, for $28.00, as in Gilbert v. Moose, 104 Pa. 74. Equally easy was the question in Basye v. Adams, 81 Ky. 368; Cooper v. Shaeffer, 7 Sadler 405. And the disparity was still more evident in Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind. 116; where but $20.00 was paid for an absolute assignment of a policy of $3000.00 on which $62.40 had been paid in premiums. But where, as in the case of Givens v. Veeder, 9 N. M. 256, the assignee had paid $2000.00 down and $2500.00 in premiums and interest on a policy of $5000.00 it was held that there was no disproportion between the amounts and that the assignment was valid. In apply ing this theory, it is necessary for the courts to take into account the life expectancy of the insured, his conditions of health at the time the assignment is made, and any changes which have taken place since the policy was issued tending to make the in sured a worse risk. f Cases in which the courts have attempted to do this will be found in Amick v. Butler, m Ind. 578; Supreme Lodge K. of H. v. Metcalf, 15 Ind. App. 135; Nye v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 9 Ind. App. 131; Ulrich v. Reinoehl, 143 Pa. 238; Shaffer v. Spangler, 144 Pa. 223; McHale v. McDonnell, 175 Pa. 632; Whelan v. Atwood, 192 Pa. 237. Some courts take the extreme view that an assignment to one having no insurable interest, assignee to pay the premiums, renders the policy void. About the only decisions which, until very recently, have followed this theory are those of Indiana and Kansas. The courts of the former state have not as yet seen fit to overrule the decision in Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Hazzard, 41 Ind. 116, approved in Frank lin Life Ins. Co. v. Sefton, 53, Ind. 380, and