against him to recover damages for not rebuilding (a). As an illustration of this a case (b) may be cited, in which the landlord having covenanted to repair the outer part of a mill, insured it, and a fire having happened, received the insurance money. Thereupon the tenant filed his bill in equity for a suspension of the rent, and praying also that the landlord might be enjoined to lay out the money upon the property. The Vice-Chancellor, however, thus stated his opinion, "With respect to the equity which the plaintiff alleges to arise from the defendant's receipt of the insurance money, there is no satisfactory principle to support it. The defendant having so contracted with the plaintiff as to render himself liable to rebuild the outer work of the factory in case of accident by fire, has very prudently protected himself by insurance from the loss he would otherwise have sustained by such an accident. But upon what principle can it be that the plaintiff's situation is to be changed by that precaution on the part of the defendant, with which the plaintiff had nothing whatever to do? The plaintiff has sought his protection in the contract by the covenants which he has required from the defendant, and to those covenants he must alone resort." But if there be an express covenant to insure and lay out the money, certainly an equitable interest in the produce would be vested in the covenantee, and in order to secure its application to the proper object, he might resort to proceedings in the Court of Chancery. A covenant of this nature, it would seem, runs with the land, as it is technically termed, i. e. may be made the subject of an action at law, by the person to whom the covenantee may have conveyed his interest in the property (c). Whether in the absence of any stipulation as to the application of the

(a) Brown v. Quilter, Ambler, 619.

(b) Leeds v. Cheetham, 1 Sim. 146.

(c) Vernon v. Smith, 5 B. & A. 1. Per Abbott, C. J., Bayley & Holroyd, JJ.

proceeds, the covenant would be of that transmissible nature admits of considerable question (a), unless the property be situate within the bills of mortality. Within that district it has been held, that under the operation of the statute 14 Geo. III. c. 78, sec. 83, such an interest is vested in the landlord by means of the rights conferred upon him to require the insurance office to lay out the money secured by the policy upon the premises, as to entitle the person, to whom he may have conveyed the reversion, to avail himself of a simple covenant to insure (b). The right, however, which arises from a contract between the person who remains interested and another, as to the application of the proceeds of the policy, obviously depends upon a different principle from the rule as to assignments. Parties may make engagements between themselves, after effecting policies, that the fund which may arise from that source shall belong to another, or that it shall be disposed of in a particular manner. It may in fact become clothed with a trust (c), arising either by means of an express contract, or a contract implied from the situation of the party procuring the policy; thus, for example (d), a trustee or executor who continues an insurance upon property vested in him in that capacity, or effects an original insurance upon it, will be liable to the cestui que trust for any amount he may receive from the insurers. In like manner, the bailee of goods, in whom the legal property becomes temporarily vested, may be sued by the real owner in an action at law for any balance be may have realised by means of an insurance upon them, after deducting his expenses as well as the amount of his original demand (e).

(a) Vernon v. Smith, 5 B. & A. 10. Per Best, J.

(b) Vernon v. Smith.

(c) Norris v. Harrison, 2 Mad. 268.

(d) Parry v. Ashley, 3 Sim. 97.

(e) Sidaways v. Todd, 2 Stark. 400. Armitage v. Winterbottom,

1 M. & G. 130.

125

COMPARATIVE TABLES OF LIFE INSURANCE.

The first of the following Tables (which was compiled from information furnished by the Insurance Offices, in answer to special inquiries addressed to each office) contains a list of the societies established in London, with a statement of the date of their formation, and some particulars relative to the business they transact. It will be observed that, in most cases, the insured have the option of either participating in the profits or not, according to the rate of premium paid. Generally, however, the participation extends only to a portion of the profits, the remainder being divided among a body of proprietors.

It is presumed that the first Table will be found to contain all the offices established up to a very recent date; but it is proper to add that several new societies have been projected. In the list of Societies provisionally registered under the recent Joint Stock Companies Act, and which do not appear yet to have come into actual operation will be found the following: Railway (British and Foreign) Life Insurance and Protection Company,' 'Protestant Dissenters,' 'Tontine,' Alpha,' 'Mitre,' 'Widows' National and General,' 'Practicable General and Invalid,' 'England Life and Invalid Hazard,' Law Life Insurance Company of Ireland,' ' Builders' Life and Fire,' London and Provincial Loan Annuity and General Life,'' Solicitors' and General.'

The second and third Tables are, it is believed, the first of the

G 3

kind which have hitherto been published: they form a graduated scale, showing the amount of premium charged by various offices for insuring 1007. for the whole life of a person aged 40. That age has been selected as being one towards the middle of life, when many persons commence insuring, and as affording as good means of judging of the comparative cheapness or dearness of offices as any other age. It is necessary, however, to observe that the third Table, which gives the rates of premium for insuring 100l. with profits, affords a very imperfect criterion for judging of comparative cheapness; for the high amount of the premium may be more than repaid by the high amount of benefit obtained, by way of present payment, or by reduction of premium, or increase of the sum payable on death. With respect, for example, to the 'London Life' (which appears by far the highest in the list), the nominal amount of premium would, on account of the peculiar system adopted by that society, be a most fallacious test of its dearness.

Though these observations do not apply to the second Table, containing a graduated scale of the rates charged for insuring 100l. without profits, it is to be remembered that of two offices, the office which is dearer at the age of 40, may be cheaper at some other age. This may be owing to the different assumptions upon which their respective rates of premium are calculated, for some follow the Northampton tables of mortality, some the Carlisle, while others pursue systems of their own. It seems scarcely necessary to remind the reader that in insurance cheapness is a consideration far inferior to security; and the comparative security of offices is to be learned, not from tabular statements, but from attention to circumstances, and from inquiries which prudence and knowledge of the world will dictate to a man of business. An office of very old standing (as 35 years or upwards) may be presumed to be

secure; but a completely new office may be safer than one which has survived a dozen years.

Of the remaining Tables, inasmuch as they sufficiently explain themselves, nothing more need be said, than that it has been thought sufficient to give the rates of premium for every fifth year only up to the age of 50. From 50 to 60, in Tables V. and VI., the rates of premium are given for every second year. From the rates given in the Tables, a tolerable guess may be formed as to the premium for an intermediate year. After 60 the differences increase rapidly from year to year; and accordingly, in the case of those societies which have published rates for older lives, the premiums for each year above 60 have been added.