MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER.

Evening Star, Issue 4225, 11 September 1876, Page 4

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE’S SISTER.

A knotty and, so far as we know novel, point in the law affecting married people (says the ‘ Daily Telegraph’) came before Mr Justice Field and'a special jury. A man had espoused his deceased wife’s sister, who survived the union eleven years. About seven years after the marriage her life had been insmed for L6OO, and the application for a policy came in the usual form from the husband, who gave some particulars as to the health of his wife’s parents and their children, including the cause of death of his first spouse. On the decease of the second wife the office was asked for payment, but refused on the ground of misrepresentation in the statement as to the cause of the first wife’s death, which, the company seems to have thought, showed that consumption was hereditary in the family. This point, however, was decided by the jiiry on Thursday in favor of the widower claimant. They found that the company was not induced to grant the policy by fraud, and that the plaintiff did not knowingly conceal the facts as to the cause of death. So far good ; but a much more serious obstacle to the claimant, which does not seem to have occurred to thd insurance office at all, started up on the suggestion of the learned judge. The lady whose demise had'given ground for the action, as the first wile’s sister, was married to the but how, then, pertinently asked Mr Justice Field, could the surviving main, who called himpelf: husband, claiip.that he had an interest in her of' the kindi contemplated by the statute ? The, Value of the,interest which a lawful husband has must be easily proved, whether there has 1 , , been a settlement dr ; not J yet’ where the wife, though she be recognised socially, is not so according to the. Jaw, but is no more than a voluntary companion, what is the value of the interest and how is it to be shoNvn; ! in de-. fault of a will or special argument ? So formidable did the point seem that, notwithstanding the finding of the jury that there was no misrepresentation in the original act of insurance, his lordship directed judgment to be entered for the company, on the plea that the plaintiff was not interested in the life of the. deceased woman, giving him leave to move the Court above for a verdict in his favor as having a real interest and beipg entitled to recover. 1 So we are promised an elaborate examination of the problem, to be followed by an authoritative dc-cjfion. This only shows how desirable it is that the law should be brought in conformity with common sense and intelligent opinion, for an enormous amount of undivulged hardship may be endured .by innocent persons. Meanwhile, the remedy for any doubt on such a point as that raised by the trial is easy enough, where the difficulty is foreseen. It is that the person whose life is insured should create an interest where it may be assumed to be wanting ; in other words, devise th? policy, or whatever the property be, by will or assignment, precisely as if the parties were strangers, related neither by blood nor by marriage.