B-25657, JULY 30, 1942, 22 COMP. GEN. 85

B-25657, JULY 30, 1942, 22 COMP. GEN. 85

SIX MONTHS' DEATH GRATUITY PAY - DEPENDENCY REQUIREMENTS AS TO DESIGNATED BENEFICIARIES HEREAFTER, NO AFFIRMATIVE SHOWING OF DEPENDENCY WILL BE REQUIRED IN MAKING PAYMENTS OF 6 MONTHS' DEATH GRATUITY PAY AUTHORIZED BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 17, 1919, AS AMENDED, TO FATHERS, MOTHERS, BROTHERS, OR SISTERS, DESIGNATED AS BENEFICIARIES OF DECEASED ARMY PERSONNEL, WHO HAD AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE LIFE OF THE DECEASED BY REASON OF RELATIONSHIP ALONE, BUT, AS TO MORE DISTANT RELATIVES, MORE EVIDENCE OF INSURABLE INTEREST WILL BE REQUIRED THAN HERETOFORE. 4 COMP. GEN. 554, MODIFIED.

ASSISTANT COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO COL. W. M. DIXON, UNITED STATES ARMY, JULY 30, 1942:

THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED, YOUR LETTER OF APRIL 21, 1942, REQUESTING DECISION WHETHER YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PAYMENT ON A VOUCHER SUBMITTED THEREWITH IN FAVOR OF ERNEST VOKES HEAP, FATHER AND DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY OF HAROLD V. HEAP, ARMY SERIAL NO. 13,032,334, DECEASED, LATE AVIATION CADET, CLASS 41-5, AIR CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY, FOR $450 REPRESENTING AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PAY OF THE DECEASED FOR 6 MONTHS UNDER THE ACT OF DECEMBER 17, 1919, 41 STAT. 367, AS AMENDED, 10 U.S. CODE 903.

AVIATION CADETS ARE ENLISTED MEN OF THE ARMY. 10 U.S.C. 297. THE ACT OF DECEMBER 17, 1919, SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, AS CODIFIED IN 10 U.S.C. 903, IS AS FOLLOWS:

HEREAFTER, IMMEDIATELY UPON OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION OF THE DEATH FROM WOUNDS OR DISEASE, NOT THE RESULT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT, OF ANY OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN ON THE ACTIVE LIST OF THE REGULAR ARMY OR ON THE RETIRED LIST WHEN ON ACTIVE DUTY, THE CHIEF OF FINANCE OF THE ARMY SHALL CAUSE TO BE PAID TO THE WIDOW, AND IF THERE BE NO WIDOW TO THE CHILD OR CHILDREN, AND IF THERE BE NO WIDOW OR CHILD TO ANY OTHER DEPENDENT RELATIVE OF SUCH OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED BY HIM, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO SIX MONTHS' PAY AT THE RATE RECEIVED BY SUCH OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH. THE SECRETARY OF WAR SHALL ESTABLISH REGULATIONS REQUIRING EACH OFFICER AND ENLISTED MAN HAVING NO WIFE OR CHILD TO DESIGNATE THE PROPER DEPENDENT RELATIVE TO WHOM THIS AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID IN CASE OF HIS DEATH. SAID AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID FROM FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR THE PAY OF THE ARMY: * * * AND PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT NONE OF THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE USED FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH SIX MONTHS' PAY TO ANY MARRIED CHILD OR UNMARRIED CHILD OVER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OF A DECEASED OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN WHO IS NOT ACTUALLY A DEPENDENT OF SUCH DECEASED OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN. * * *

THE PAYEE OF THE VOUCHER SUBMITTED HAS SHOWN THAT HIS OCCUPATION IS DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT; THAT HIS INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES IS $375 PER MONTH; THAT THE DECEASED DID NOT CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING TO HIM DURING HIS LIFETIME AND THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER FACTS TENDING TO SHOW HIS DEPENDENCY ON THE DECEASED.

IN 4 COMP. GEN. 554, IN A DECISION TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DECEMBER 22, 1924, A FORMER COMPTROLLER GENERAL CONSTRUED A NAVY ACT PRACTICALLY IDENTICAL WITH THE ARMY STATUTE ABOVE QUOTED (EXCEPT AS TO THE LAST PROVISO AS TO MARRIED CHILDREN AND THE REQUIREMENT OF ACTUAL DEPENDENCY OF UNMARRIED CHILDREN OVER 21) AS REQUIRING A SHOWING OF DEPENDENCY OF THE DESIGNATED RELATIVE IN SOME DEGREE ON THE DECEASED TO AUTHORIZE PAYMENT.

THE ACT IN QUESTION WAS NOT THE FIRST PROVISION MADE FOR PAYMENT UPON THE DEATH OF AN OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN OF THE ARMY. IT WAS PRECEDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 11, 1908, 35 STAT. 108, AS FOLLOWS:

THAT HEREAFTER IMMEDIATELY UPON OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION OF THE DEATH FROM WOUNDS OR DISEASE CONTRACTED IN LINE OF DUTY OF ANY OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN ON THE ACTIVE LIST OF THE ARMY, THE PAYMASTER-1GENERAL OF THE ARMY SHALL CAUSE TO BE PAID TO THE WIDOW OF SUCH OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN, OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED BY HIM, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO SIX MONTHS' PAY AT THE RATE RECEIVED BY SUCH OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN AT THE DATE OF HIS DEATH, LESS SEVENTY-FIVE DOLLARS IN THE CASE OF AN OFFICER AND THIRTY-FIVE DOLLARS IN THE CASE OF AN ENLISTED MAN. FROM THE AMOUNT THUS RESERVED THE QUARTERMASTER'S DEPARTMENT SHALL BE REIMBURSED FOR EXPENSES OF INTERMENT, AND THE RESIDUE, IF ANY, OF THE AMOUNT RESERVED SHALL BE PAID SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE DESIGNATED PERSON. THE SECRETARY OF WAR SHALL ESTABLISH REGULATIONS REQUIRING EACH OFFICER AND ENLISTED MAN TO DESIGNATE THE PROPER PERSON TO WHOM THIS AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID IN CASE OF HIS DEATH, AND SAID AMOUNT SHALL BE PAID TO THAT PERSON FROM FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR THE PAY OF THE ARMY.

IDENTICAL PROVISION WAS MADE FOR THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS IN THE ACT OF MAY 13, 1908, 35 STAT. 128. BY THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1909, 35 STAT. 735, THE ARMY ACT WAS AMENDED BY STRIKING OUT THE WORDS "CONTRACTED IN LINE OF DUTY" AND INSERTING IN LIEU THEREOF THE WORDS "NOT THE RESULT OF HIS OWN DISCONDUCT.' THE NAVY ACT WAS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 22, 1912, 37 STAT. 329, TO READ, SO FAR AS HERE MATERIAL, SUBSTANTIALLY AS DOES THE ACT OF DECEMBER 17, 1919, FIRST QUOTED ABOVE, THAT IS, PAYMENT WAS AUTHORIZED IN THE CASE OF DEATH "FROM WOUNDS OR DISEASE NOT THE RESULT OF HIS OWN MISCONDUCT * * * TO BE PAID TO THE WIDOW, AND IF NO WIDOW, TO THE CHILDREN, AND, IF THERE BE NO CHILDREN, TO ANY OTHER DEPENDENT RELATIVE OF SUCH OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED BY HIM.'

BOTH THE ARMY AND THE NAVY LAWS WERE REPEALED BY SECTION 312 OF THE ACT OF OCTOBER 6, 1917, 40 STAT. 408--- THE WAR RISK INSURANCE ACT UNDER WHICH ALLOTMENTS, ALLOWANCES, COMPENSATION, AND INSURANCE WERE PROVIDED FOR MILITARY AND NAVAL PERSONNEL DURING THE WORLD WAR COMMENCING APRIL 6, 1917. THE LAWS WERE REENACTED, WITH CERTAIN LIMITATIONS NOT HERE MATERIAL, FOR THE ARMY BY THE ACT OF DECEMBER 17, 1919, 41 STAT. 367, AND FOR THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS BY THE ACT OF JUNE 4, 1920, 41 STAT. 824, IN BOTH OF WHICH THE LANGUAGE AS TO BENEFICIARIES FIRST ADOPTED IN 1912 WAS USED.

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT IN THE 1908 ACT THE PAYMENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO BE MADE TO "THE WIDOW * * * OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED BY HIM.' THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS SEEM TO HAVE APPLIED THE LANGUAGE LITERALLY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CASE OF FOX, 63 MS. COMP. DEC. 346, OCTOBER 24, 1912, OILER FOX HAD DESIGNATED HIS MOTHER. HE SUBSEQUENTLY MARRIED BUT HAD NOT CHANGED HIS DESIGNATION AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH AND IT WAS HELD:

* * * THAT THE PERSON SO DESIGNATED IS THE ONE TO WHOM THE SIX MONTHS' GRATUITY PAY IS PROPERLY PAYABLE, AND SUCH BEING THE CASE THE CLAIM OF THE WIDOW FOR SUCH GRATUITY PAY MUST BE DISALLOWED.

IN THAT DECISION THERE WAS CITED 18 COMP. DEC. 277, IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE RULE APPLICABLE TO WILLS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO DESIGNATIONS MADE UNDER THIS STATUTE. IN 20 COMP. DEC. 146, A WOMAN WITH WHOM THE MAN WAS LIVING WAS DESIGNATED AND IT WAS HELD SHE COULD TAKE TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE WIDOW OF THE MAN. IT IS PROBABLE THAT THESE HOLDINGS OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS MADE IT DESIRABLE TO RESTRICT THE BENEFICIARIES OF THIS PAYMENT TO PERSONS RELATED TO THE MAN AND WHO MIGHT SUFFER DEPRIVATION OF AID, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL, IN CASE OF HIS DEATH. THE 1912 ACT AND THE ACTS NOW IN EFFECT GIVE THE WIDOW AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT WITHOUT DESIGNATION TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS; IF THERE BE NO WIDOW SUCH RIGHT IS GIVEN TO THE CHILD OR CHILDREN TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS; AND IF THERE BE NEITHER WIDOW NOR CHILD THEN TO "ANY OTHER DEPENDENT RELATIVE * * * PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED.' UNDER THE 1908 ACT NO SHOWING OF DEPENDENCY WAS REQUIRED, THE MERE DESIGNATION OF A PERSON--- ANY PERSON--- SECURED PAYMENT IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY QUESTION OF RELATIONSHIP. ALTHOUGH THE PROVISION WAS IN THE NATURE OF INSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF THE OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN, PAYMENTS WERE NOT RESTRICTED TO PERSONS HAVING AN INSURABLE INTEREST, AND IT IS PROBABLE THIS WAS THE OBJECTION TO THE 1908 PROVISION AND WAS THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF LANGUAGE FIRST MADE IN 1912. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE IN 1919, TO SECURE REENACTMENT OF THE PROVISION, THAT OFFICERS HAD BEEN LED TO RELY UPON IT AS A PROVISION OF INSURANCE MADE FOR THEIR FAMILIES AND THAT ADVANCING AGE HAD GREATLY INCREASED THE COST OF SECURING AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF INSURANCE. IN CONSTRUING THE ACT OF AUGUST 22, 1912, IN DECISION OF JANUARY 3, 1913, TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, 64 MS. COMP. DEC. 11, THE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY SAID:

THE ACT IN QUESTION MAKES PROVISION FOR THE WIDOW AND CHILDREN, OR OTHER DEPENDENT RELATIVES OF A DECEASED OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN AT A TIME WHEN BY HIS DEATH THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF HIS SUPPORT. IT IS SURELY A BENEFICIAL STATUTE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULE LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS IT SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION.

I CAN UNDERSTAND, AS THE PAYMASTER GENERAL SUGGESTS, THAT THERE MAY BE DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING IN CASES WHETHER ONE DESIGNATED AS A DEPENDENT RELATIVE IS SUCH WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION. IN OTHER WORDS, HOW MUCH DEPENDENCY IS REQUIRED TO ENTITLE A RELATIVE TO RECEIVE THE BENEFIT. IT CANNOT BE LIMITED TO ONE WHOLLY DEPENDENT OR THE LAW WOULD SO STATE. THEN TO WHAT EXTENT DEPENDENT? IT IS NOT CLEAR, BUT A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION MUST BE GIVEN.

IT IS VERY PROPER TO ESTABLISH RULES AS TO THE EVIDENCE TO BE REQUIRED. IT MAY HOWEVER BE FOUND IN SOME CASES THAT THE BEST EVIDENCE OBTAINABLE WILL BE SUFFICIENT ALTHOUGH NOT SO FULL AS THAT REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES OR INSTRUCTIONS. WHEN THE OFFICER OR MAN DESIGNATES A DEPENDENT RELATIVE THE FACT THAT HE OR SHE IS DESIGNATED AS SUCH SHOULD BE GIVEN WEIGHT AS NONE KNOWS BETTER THE DEPENDENCY OF THE RELATIVE THAN THE PERSON MAKING THE DESIGNATION. IT IS SAID IN PARAGRAPH 3 (C) (4) THAT THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALLOTMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DESIGNATED DEPENDENT RELATIVE WILL BE ACCEPTED AS SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEPENDENCY. I HARDLY THINK THAT SO MUCH WEIGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALLOTMENT AS ALLOTMENTS MAY BE MADE, AND ARE MADE, FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAN THE SUPPORT OF FAMILIES AND RELATIVES (ACT OF JUNE 10, 1896, 29 STAT. 361). WHILE THAT DECISION RECOGNIZED THAT DEPENDENCY IN SOME DEGREE WAS REQUIRED, IN EFFECT IT LEFT THE QUESTION OF DEPENDENCY TO THE OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN "AS NONE KNOWS BETTER THE DEPENDENCY OF THE RELATIVE THAN THE PERSON MAKING THE DESIGNATION.' THIS WAS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACT OF 1912 UNTIL IT WAS REPEALED, AND THAT INTERPRETATION CONTINUED FROM ITS REENACTMENT (1919 IN THE CASE OF THE ARMY AND 1920 IN THE CASE OF THE NAVY AND MARINE CORPS) UNTIL THE DECISION OF DECEMBER 22, 1924, WHEN THE THEN COMPTROLLER GENERAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE PRINCIPAL REQUIREMENT IN CONNECTION WITH "ANY OTHER DEPENDENT RELATIVE * * * PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED" WAS THAT THEY BE DEPENDENT AT LEAST IN SOME DEGREE ON THE DECEASED AND THAT EVIDENCE OF SUCH DEPENDENCY MUST BE SHOWN.

IT THUS APPEARS THAT THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS HAVE HAD, FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, TWO VIEWS OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE AND THE QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN PASSED UPON IN ANY COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE LARGE NUMBER OF CASES NOW REACHING THIS OFFICE IN WHICH THE FACT OF DEPENDENCY IS THE ONLY QUESTION INVOLVED JUSTIFIES A REEXAMINATION OF THE QUESTION SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO UNIFORM INTERPRETATION AND THE MATTER HAS NOT REACHED THE COURTS.

THE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION SHOWS PLAINLY THE LATER STATUTES WERE INTENDED TO RESTRICT THE PERSONS, OTHER THAN WIFE OR CHILD, TO RELATIVES; AND THAT RESTRICTION WAS FURTHER QUALIFIED BY REQUIRING THAT THEY BE DEPENDENT RELATIVES. THE ACTS OF 1908 DID NOT REQUIRE DEPENDENCY ON THE DECEASED OF "ANY OTHER PERSON PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED" AND THE QUESTION NECESSARILY ARISES WHETHER THIS QUALIFYING DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIVES WAS INTENDED TO REQUIRE A SHOWING OF ACTUAL DEPENDENCY IN SOME DEGREE, OR WHETHER, LIKE THE PROVISION FOR WIDOW OR CHILD, IT WAS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT PAYMENTS TO THOSE WHO BY THEIR NEAR RELATIONSHIP TO THE DECEASED WOULD BE CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY DEPENDENT, AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING NAMED AS BENEFICIARY IN AN INSURANCE POLICY ON THE LIFE OF THE DECEASED. THE PAYMENT PROVIDED FOR IN THE STATUTE HERE INVOLVED IS TO BE MADE TO THE WIDOW OR CHILD WITHOUT DESIGNATION AND WITHOUT ANY SHOWING OTHER THAN THE RELATIONSHIP; IT HAD BEEN PAYABLE PRIOR TO THE NAVY ACT OF 1912 AND PRIOR TO OCTOBER 6, 1917, IN THE ARMY TO "ANY OTHER PERSON PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED" WITHOUT ANY SHOWING OF DEPENDENCY, INDEED WITHOUT ANY SHOWING OF RELATIONSHIP OR INSURABLE INTEREST UNDER THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS OF THE 1908 ACTS. IN KEEPING WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION IS IT REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT THE INTENT WAS TO REQUIRE THE "DEPENDENT RELATIVE * * * PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED," INCLUDING FATHERS, MOTHERS, BROTHERS, AND SISTERS, TO BE ACTUALLY DEPENDENT IN SOME DEGREE? A VIEW MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT AND WITH ITS PROVISION FOR WIDOW OR CHILD IS THAT THE QUALIFICATION WAS TO RESTRICT THE CLASS OF DEPENDENTS AND TO LIMIT ITS GENERALITY AS THERETOFORE AUTHORIZED BY THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS. THE AMOUNT IS PAYABLE, AS IS LIFE INSURANCE, ON THE DEATH OF THE OFFICER OR ENLISTED MAN UNDER THE CONDITIONS FIXED IN THE STATUTE; AND TO LIMIT PAYMENTS TO NEAR RELATIVES PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED WHO HAVE AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE LIFE OF THE DECEASED WOULD NECESSARILY INCLUDE ONLY NEAR RELATIVES POTENTIALLY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY ACTUALLY, DEPENDENT. IT MAY BE OBSERVED, ALSO, THAT IN PRACTICALLY ALL CASES WHERE SUCH PROCEDURE IS POSSIBLE, THE BODY OF THE DECEASED IS RETURNED USUALLY TO THE DESIGNATED DEPENDENT RELATIVE. COSTS ARE INCURRED IN THAT CONNECTION BY THE RELATIVE AND FREQUENTLY OTHER EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF THE PERSON IN THE SERVICE BY SUCH RELATIVE. WHERE THE DECEASED IS IN THE LOWER ENLISTED GRADES SUCH COSTS AND EXPENDITURES FREQUENTLY EXCEED THE AMOUNT THAT IS PAYABLE UNDER THE STATUTE AND YET IF NOT ACTUALLY DEPENDENT--- EVEN IN SOME DEGREE--- AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RELATIVE MUST BEAR SUCH COST AND EXPENSES WITHOUT THE PAYMENT OF THE INSURANCE BENEFIT CLEARLY INTENDED TO BE PAID BY THE UNITED STATES "TO ANY OTHER DEPENDENT RELATIVE * * * PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED.' THERE HAVING BEEN A LACK OF UNIFORMITY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE BY THE ACCOUNTING OFFICERS AND THERE HAVING BEEN NO JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE STATUTE IN THIS RESPECT, I CONCLUDE THAT LIMITING THE PAYMENT "TO ANY OTHER DEPENDENT RELATIVE * * * PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED" WHO HAS AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE LIFE OF THE DECEASED WILL MORE FULLY GIVE EFFECT TO THE INTENT, AS WELL AS THE PURPOSE AND OBJECT, OF THE STATUTE THAN TO REQUIRE A SHOWING OF ACTUAL DEPENDENCY, EVEN TO A LIMITED DEGREE, OF ANY RELATIVE PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED.

AS TO WHAT RELATIVES WOULD HAVE AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE LIFE OF THE DECEASED, I BELIEVE ALL COURTS RECOGNIZE THAT THE MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, OR SISTER OF A PERSON HAVE AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE LIFE OF THE SON, BROTHER, OR SISTER BY REASON OF THE RELATIONSHIP ALONE. CROSSWELL V. CONN. INDEM. ASSN. 51 S.C. 103; 26 S.E. 200; WILTON V. N.Y.L. INS. CO; 34 TEX. CIV. AP. 156, 158; 78 S.W. 403, CITED AND QUOTED 37 C.J. 392. SEE, ALSO, AS TO BROTHERS AND SISTERS AETNA LIFE INS. CO. V. FRANCE, 94 U.S. 561. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE CASE OF WARNOCK V. DAVIS, 104 U.S. 775, AT PAGE 779, USED THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE:

IT IS NOT EASY TO DEFINE WITH PRECISION WHAT WILL IN ALL CASES CONSTITUTE AN INSURABLE INTEREST, SO AS TO TAKE THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE CLASS OF WAGER POLICIES. IT MAY BE STATED GENERALLY, HOWEVER, TO BE SUCH AN INTEREST, ARISING FROM THE RELATIONS OF THE PARTY OBTAINING THE INSURANCE, EITHER AS CREDITOR OF OR SURETY FOR THE ASSURED, OR FROM THE TIES OF BLOOD OR MARRIAGE TO HIM, AS WILL JUSTIFY A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF ADVANTAGE OR BENEFIT FROM THE CONTINUANCE OF HIS LIFE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE EXPECTATION OF ADVANTAGE OR BENEFIT SHOULD BE ALWAYS CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION; FOR A PARENT HAS AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE LIFE OF HIS CHILD, AND A CHILD IN THE LIFE OF HIS PARENT, A HUSBAND IN THE LIFE OF HIS WIFE, AND A WIFE IN THE LIFE OF HER HUSBAND. THE NATURAL AFFECTION IN CASES OF THIS KIND IS CONSIDERED AS MORE POWERFUL--- AS OPERATING MORE EFFICACIOUSLY--- TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE INSURED THAN ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. BUT IN ALL CASES THERE MUST BE A REASONABLE GROUND, FOUNDED UPON THE RELATIONS OF THE PARTIES TO EACH OTHER, EITHER PECUNIARY OR OF BLOOD OR AFFINITY, TO EXPECT SOME BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE FROM THE CONTINUANCE OF THE LIFE OF THE ASSURED. OTHERWISE THE CONTRACT IS A MERE WAGER, BY WHICH THE PARTY TAKING THE POLICY IS DIRECTLY INTERESTED IN THE EARLY DEATH OF THE ASSURED. SUCH POLICIES HAVE A TENDENCY TO CREATE A DESIRE FOR THE EVENT. THEY ARE, THEREFORE, INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY STATUTE ON THE SUBJECT, CONDEMNED, AS BEING AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.

IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT CREDITORS OR OTHERS NOT RELATED ARE NOT WITHIN THE STATUTE HERE CONSIDERED.

AS TO MORE DISTANT RELATIVES, UNDER THE DECISIONS OF THE COURTS EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY TO SHOW AN INSURABLE INTEREST IN THE LIFE OF THE DECEASED; AND MORE EVIDENCE THAN HERETOFORE HAS BEEN DEEMED NECESSARY FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE GRATUITY IN SUCH CASES WILL BE REQUIRED.

THE FATHER IN THIS CASE BEING A "DEPENDENT RELATIVE * * * PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED" BY THE DECEASED, HAROLD V. HEAP, AS INDICATED ABOVE PAYMENT MAY BE MADE ON THE VOUCHER HEREWITH RETURNED IF OTHERWISE CORRECT.