This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1853 edition. Excerpt: ...class of companies would resist payment on the ground of a slight misstatement of age, unless the assured' was guilty of fraud; although they might justly, and would probably, retain the extra premium which would have been required had the age been correctly stated. he could not retain his urine or foeces, and which was not mentioned to the insurers. Sir James died of a malignant fever within the time of the assurance. All the physicians and surgeons who were examined for the plaintiff swore, that the wound had no sort of connection with the fever, and that the want of retention was not a disorder which shortened life, but he might, notwithstanding that, have lived to ti re common age of man; and the surgeon who opened him said, that his intestines were all sound. There was one physician examined for the defendant, who said, the want of retention was paralytic; but being asked to explain, he said, it was only a local palsy, arising from the wound but did not affect life; but on the whole he did not look upon him as a good life. Lord Mansfield said: "The question of fraud can not exist in this case. When a man makes insurance upon a life generally, without any representation of the state of the life-insured, the insurer takes all the risk, unless there was some fraud in the person insuring, either by his suppressing some circumstance which he knew, or by alledging what was false; but if the person knew no more than the insurer, the latter takes the risk. i In this ease there is a warranty, and whenever that is the case it must at all events be proved that the party was a good life, which makes the question on a warranty much larger than that on a fraud. Here it is proved that there was no representation at all as to the state...