ported by his father, and dependent on some fund terminable by his death, has an insurable interest in his father's life.

By statute law in New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Rhode Island, married women may, under certain restrictions, insure for their own benefit their husbands' lives; and in Vermont, an unmarried female can insure the life of her father or brother.

5. What about representations while effecting a life policy of insurance ?-370.

The same good faith is as requisite in this as in all other policies; and whether the suppression arises from fraud or accident is quite immaterial, if the fact be material to the risk, and that is a question for a jury.

6. What is undertaken by the underwriter on an insurance against fire?-370.

He undertakes, in consideration of the premium, to indemnify the insured against all losses in his houses, buildings, furniture, ships in port, or merchandise, by means of accidental fire happening within a prescribed period.

7. What is a sufficient interest in the property to support an insurance against fire ?-371, 372.

A creditor may have a policy on the house and goods of his debtor, upon which he has a lien or mortgage security. So, a trustee, or agent, or factor, who has the custody of goods for sale on commission, may insure them, and a bona fide equitable interest may be insured. And in New York it has been held, that a commission merchant, consignee, or factor, can insure goods, in his possession, of the consignor or principal, not merely to the extent of his commission, but to the full value of the goods, without reference to his lien. But it is usually made a condition in American policies, that goods held in trust, or on commission, must be insured as such, or they will not be covered by the policy.

8. What is the insured bound, in good faith, to disclose to the insurer ?-373.

Every fact material to the risk, and within his knowledge

and which, if stated, would influence the mind of the insurer in making or declining the contract.

9. What is the rule as to the assignment of policies ?-375.

Fire policies usually contain a prohibition against the assignment of them, without the previous consent of the company. But without this clause, they are assignable in equity like other choses in action, though to render the assignment of any value to the assignee, an interest in the subject-matter of the insurance must be assigned also. This restriction upon assignments of the policy applies only to transfers before a loss happens; and it applies only to voluntary sales, and not to sales on execution.

10. How are settlements of losses by fire made?—375.

They are made on the principle of particular average, and the estimated loss is paid without abandonment of what has been saved. Damages and reasonable charges on removing, at a fire, articles insured, are covered by the policy. So there may be a general average for a sacrifice made by the insured for the common good, in a case of necessity. It is analogous to the law of contribution by co-securities.

11. How are losses certified?-376, n. 2.

Upon oath; and the certificate of a magistrate, notary, or clergyman, is made necessary to be procured in favor of the truth and fairness of the statement of the loss, and a strict and literal compliance with the terms of the conditions is held indispensable to the right of recovery. But the terms of the policy respecting notice are to have a reasonable interpretation.

The contract is confined to the parties, and, as a general rule, no equity attaches upon the proceeds of policies, in favor of third persons who, in the character of grantee, mortgagee or creditor, may sustain loss by the fire, without some contract or trust to that effect.

LECTURE LI.

OF THE FOUNDATION OF TITLE TO LANDS.

1. Upon the introduction of the feudal tenures, what became a fundamental maxim of the English law in relation to title to land? -378, n. (b.)

That the king was the original proprietor of all the land in the kingdom, and the only true source of title. In this country we have adopted the same principle, and applied it to our own republican governments; and it is a settled fundamental doctrine with us, that all valid individual title to land, within the United States, is derived from the grant of our local governments, or from the United States, or from the crown or royal chartered governments established here prior to the Revolution. This doctrine was declared in New York, and several other States, and it was held to be the settled rule, that the courts could not take notice of any title not derived from our own State or colonial government, and duly verified by patent. In a recent case, however, it seems to have been looked on as 'settled law, that purchases made at Indian treaties, with the approbation of the government agent, carry a valid title without the necessity of a patent from the United States. This decision is contrary

to all previous ones.

2. By what right did the European nations claim to have dominion on this continent ?-379, 380.

By right of prior discovery; which discovery was considered to have given to the government, by whose subjects or authority it was made, a title to the country, and the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives, as against all other European powers. Each nation claimed the right to regulate for itself, in exclusion of all others, the relation which was to subsist between the discoverer and the Indians. That relation necessarily impaired, to a considerable degree, the rights of the original inhabitants, and an ascendency was asserted, in consequence of the

See Coleman v. Doe, 4 Smedes & Marshall, 40.

superior genius of the Europeans, founded on civilization and Christianity, and of their superiority in the art of war. The European nations, which respectively established colonies in America, assumed the ultimate dominion to be in themselves, and claimed the exclusive right to grant a title to the soil, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. The natives were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as a just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion, though not to dispose of the soil at their will, except to the government claiming the right of preëmption. The practice of Spain, France, Holland, and England, proved the very general recognition of the claim and title to American territories given by discovery. The United States have adopted the same principle; and their exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title by purchase or conquest, and to grant the soil, and exercise such a degree of sovereignty as circumstances required, has never been judicially questioned.

3. What has the Supreme Court of the United States decided regarding the Cherokee nation ?--382.

A majority of the court held, that the Cherokee nation of Indians, dwelling within the jurisdictional limits of the United States, was not a foreign State, in the sense in which the word is used in the Constitution, nor entitled as such to proceed in that court against the State of Georgia. But it was admitted that the Cherokees were a State, and recognized, in treaties, as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, and responsible in their political capacity. The court considered them as domestic, dependent nations, whose relation to us resembled that of a ward to his guardian; and it was held, that their right to the lands they occupied was unquestionable, until it should be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government.

The court, in another case,† re-affirmed the same doctrine, and declared null and void several acts passed by the State Legislature of Georgia, depriving by force the Indians of their lands and gold mines, and prohibiting them from the exercise of any political power whatever.

4. Upon what basis did the people of the New England colonies settle their towns ?-391-399, n. (a.)

They settled all their towns upon the basis of a title procured by fair purchase from the Indians, with the consent of government, except in a few instances of lands acquired by conquest, after a war deemed to have been just and necessary. Most of the other colonies proceeded on a like principle, and prohibition of individual purchases of lands has since been made a constitutional provision in the States of New York, Virginia, and North Carolina. And the government of the United States until the year 1830, pursued a system of pacific, just and paternal policy towards the Indians, never insisting upon any other claim to their lands than the right of preemption upon fair terms. Since then the federal government seems to have adopted a different policy, in one instance expelling Indians by military force from their lands, and, in what is now known as the Indian Country, introducing the criminal laws of the United States.

LECTURE LII.

OF INCORPOREAL HEREDITAMENTS.

1. Of what do things real consist ?—401.

Of lands, tenements, and hereditaments,

2. What is an hereditament ?—401.

Any thing capable of being inherited, be it corporeal, incorporeal, real, personal, or mixed.

3. What does the term "real estate" mean?—401.

An estate in fee or for life in land, and it does not comprehend terms for years, or any interest short of a freehold.

4. What is a tenement ?-401.

A tenement comprises every thing which may be holden so as to create a tenancy, in the feudal sense of the term, and, no