although that counter interest always exists, as early was emphasized for England in the famous case of Wainewright (Janus Weathercock), the chance that in some cases it may prove a sufficient motive for crime is greatly enhanced if the whole world of the unscrupulous are free to bet on what life they choose. The very meaning of an insurable interest is an interest in having the life continue and so one that is opposed to crime. And, what perhaps is more important, the existence of such an interest makes a roughly selected class of persons who by their general relations with the person whose life is insured are less likely than criminals at large to attempt to compass his death.

But when the question arises upon an assignment it is assumed that the objection to the insurance as a wager is out of the case. In the present instance the policy was perfectly good. There was a faint suggestion in argument that it had become void by the failure of Burchard to pay the third premium ad diem, and that when Grigsby paid he was making a new contract. But a condition in a policy that it shall be void if premiums are not paid when due, means only that it shall be voidable at the option of the company. Knickerbocker Life Insurance Company v. Norton, 96 U. S. 234; Oakes v. Manufacturers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 135 Massachusetts, 248. The company waived the breach, if there was one, and the original contract with Burchard remained on foot. No question as to the character of that contract is before us. It has been performed and the money is in court. But this being so, not only does the objection to wagers disappear, but also the principle of public policy referred to, at least in its most convincing form. The danger that might arise from a general license to all to insure whom they like does not exist. Obviously it is a very different thing from granting such a general license, to allow the holder of a valid insurance upon his own life to transfer it to one whom he, the party most concerned, is not afraid to trust. The law has no

universal cynic fear of the temptation opened by a pecuniary benefit accruing upon a death. It shows no prejudice against remainders after life estates, even by the rule in Shelley's Case. Indeed, the ground of the objection to life insurance without interest in the earlier English cases was not the temptation to murder but the fact that such wagers came to be regarded as a mischievous kind of gaming. St. 14 George III, c. 48.

On the other hand, life insurance has become in our days one of the best recognized forms of investment and selfcompelled saving. So far as reasonable safety permits, it is desirable to give to life policies the ordinary characteristics of property. This is recognized by the Bankruptcy Law, § 70, which provides that unless the cash surrender value of a policy like the one before us is secured to the trustee within thirty days after it has been stated the policy shall pass to the trustee as assets. Of course the trustee may have no interest in the bankrupt's life. To deny the right to sell except to persons having such an interest is to diminish appreciably the value of the contract in the owner's hands. The collateral difficulty that arose from regarding life insurance as a contract of indemnity only, Godsall v. Boldero, 9 East, 72, long has disappeared. Phoenix Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616. And cases in which a person having an interest lends himself to one without any as a cloak to what is in its inception a wager have no similarity to those where an honest contract is sold in good faith.

Coming to the authorities in this court, it is true that there are intimations in favor of the result come to by the Circuit Court of Appeals. But the case in which the strongest of them occur was one of the type just referred to, the policy having been taken out for the purpose of allowing a stranger association to pay the premiums and receive the greater part of the benefit, and having been assigned to it at once. Warnock v. Davis, 104 U. S. 775.

On the other hand it has been decided that a valid policy is not avoided by the cessation of the insurable interest, even as against the insurer, unless so provided by the policy itself. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. 457. And expressions more or less in favor of the doctrine that we adopt are to be found also in Etna Life Ins. Co. v. France, 94 U. S. 561. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591. It is enough to say that while the court below might hesitate to decide against the language of Warnock v. Davis, there has been no decision that precludes us from exercising our own judgment upon this much debated point. It is at least satisfactory to learn from the decision below that in Tennessee, where this assignment was made, although there has been much division of opinion, the Supreme Court of that State came to the conclusion that we adopt, in an unreported case, Lewis v. Edwards, December 14, 1903. The law in England and the preponderance of decisions in our state courts are on the same side.

Some reference was made to a clause in the policy that "any claim against the company arising under any assignment of the policy shall be subject to proof of interest.” But it rightly was assumed below that if there was no rule of law to that effect and the company saw fit to pay, the clause did not diminish the rights of Grigsby as against the administrators of Burchard's estate.

Decree reversed.

MR. JUSTICE LURTON took no part in the decision of this case.

Opinion of the Court.

222 U.S.

UNITED STATES v. FIDELITY TRUST COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 280. Argued November 15, 1911.-Decided December 4, 1911.

A legacy to pay over net income to the legatee in periodical payments during the legatee's life on which the legatee has received several payments of income is not a contingent beneficial interest, but a vested life estate; and taxes paid on the value of such a legacy under the War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898, c. 448, 30 Stat. 448, 464, cannot be recovered under § 3 of the act of June 27, 1902, c. 1160, 32 Stat. 406. Vanderbilt v. Eidman, 196 U. S. 480, distinguished. Congress will be presumed to use familiar legal expressions in their familiar legal sense.

45 Ct. Cls. 362, reversed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Harr, with whom The Solicitor General was on the brief, for the United States.

Mr. Paul Fuller, with whom Mr. Barry Mohun was on the brief, for appellees.

Mr. A. R. Serven, Mr. H. T. Newcomb, Mr. Morris F. Frey and Mr. R. W. Joyce also filed a brief for appellees.

Mr. George P. Montague, by leave of court, filed a brief as amicus curiæ.

The Attorney General, with whom Mr. Barton Corneau was on the brief, in opposition to motion to dismiss or affirm.

Mr. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit to recover a portion of a succession tax paid under the act of June 13, 1898, c. 448, 30 Stat. 448,

464; the action being based on the act of June 27, 1902, c. 1160, § 3, 32 Stat. 406, which provides for refunding "so much of said tax as may have been collected on contingent beneficial interests which shall not have become vested prior to July first, nineteen hundred and two." The petitioner, appellee, was residuary legatee under a will, in trust to hold the fund 'either as at present invested or in such securities as to my said trustee may be deemed safe,' and to pay over the net income to the testator's niece 'in quarterly payments during all the period of her natural life.' On June 8, 1900, the appellee made a return to the collector of internal revenue, stating that the value of the residuary estate was $120,303.94, and that of a specific legacy of silverware &c. to the niece, $500. With the aid of mortuary tables, the rate of interest being assumed to be four per cent, the clear value of the legacies to the niece was fixed at $74678.68, and an inheritance tax of $5600.90 was assessed upon it, which was paid on August 16, 1900. Up to July 1, 1902, the date fixed by the statute, the petitioner had paid to the niece $17027.59 income from the residue, and had delivered to her the specific legacy valued at $500. The tax on these sums at the rate of taxation was $1314.59, which, deducted from the whole tax paid, leaves $4286.31, to recover which this suit is brought. The appellees had judgment in the Court of Claims. 45 C. Cls. 362.

The words 'which shall not have become vested,' quoted above, mean the same as 'absolutely vested in possession or enjoyment' in a later clause ending the tax on contingent interests unless so vested before July 1, 1902. Vanderbilt v. Eidman, 196 U. S. 480, 500. On this ground it is argued at great length that only so much of the life interest of the niece as she had received before the date mentioned had vested in the sense of the clause. We are of opinion that this argument cannot be maintained. The interest of the niece was not a contingent right to income as