Opinion of the Court.

that the company should be liable, if his death was intentionally caused by himself when in sound mind. When the policy is silent as to suicide, it is to be taken that the subject of the insurance, that is, the life of the assured, shall not be intentionally and directly, with whatever motive, destroyed by him when in sound mind. To hold otherwise is to say that the occurrence of the event upon the happening of which the company undertook to pay, was intended to be left to his option. That view is against the very essence of the con

tract.

There is another consideration supporting the contention that death intentionally caused by the act of the assured when in sound mind-the policy being silent as to suicide - is not to be deemed to have been within the contemplation of the parties; that is, that a different view would attribute to them a purpose to make a contract that could not be enforced without injury to the public. A contract, the tendency of which is to endanger the public interests or injuriously affect the public good, or which is subversive of sound morality, ought never to receive the sanction of a court of justice or be made the foundation of its judgment. If, therefore, a policy - taken out by the person whose life is insured, and in which the sum named is made payable to himself, his executors, administrators or assigns - expressly provided for the payment of the sum stipulated when or if the assured, in sound mind, took his own life, the contract, even if not prohibited by statute, would be held to be against public policy, in that it tempted or encouraged the assured to commit suicide in order to make provision for those dependent upon him, or to whom he was indebted.

Is the case any different in principle if such a policy is silent as to suicide, and the event insured against - the death of the assured-is brought about by his wilful, deliberate act when in sound mind? Light will be thrown on this question by some of the adjudged cases, having more or less bearing upon the precise point now before this court for determination.

The plaintiff insists that the question just stated is answered in the affirmative by the opinion in Life Ins. Co. v. Terry,

Opinion of the Court.

15 Wall. 580. As before stated, that was an action upon a life policy, containing the condition that it should be void if the assured should "die by his own hand;" and the controlling question was whether the condition embraced the case of an assured who committed self-destruction at a time when his reasoning faculties were so far impaired that he was unable to comprehend the moral character, the general nature, consequences and effect of the act he was about to commit, or when he was impelled thereto by an insane impulse which he had not the power to resist. There was no question in that case as to the effect upon the rights of the parties of intentional self-destruction, where the policy contained no provision as to suicide. In the course of the review of the adjudged cases reference was made in the opinion of this court to Borradaile v. Hunter, 5 Mann. & Gr. 639, and also to Hartman v. Keystone Ins. Co., 21 Penn. St. 466, 479. In the former case it appeared that the assured threw himself into the Thames and was drowned, and the jury found that he voluntarily threw himself into the water, knowing at the time that he should thereby destroy his life, and intending thereby to do so, but at the time of committing the act he was not capable of judging between right and wrong. The question was as to the liability of the insurance company on a policy issued to the assured containing a clause or proviso that the policy should be void if "the assured should die by his own hands, or by the hands of justice, or in consequence of a duel." Maule, Erskine and Coltman, JJ., held that the company was not liable, while Tindall, C. J., was of the opinion that the proviso embraced cases of felonious suicide only, and not cases of self-destruction whilst the assured was under the influence of frenzy, delusion or insanity. In the latter case it appeared that the assured committed selfdestruction by taking arsenic. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that there could be no recovery, Chief Justice Black saying: "The conditions of the policy are, that it shall be null and void 'if the assured shall die by his own hand, in or in consequence of a duel, or by the hands of justice,' etc. The plaintiff argues that the first clause here quoted

Opinion of the Court.

does not embrace a suicide committed by swallowing arsenic. Where parties have put their contracts in writing their rights are fixed by it. But the contract is what they meant it to be, and when we can ascertain their meaning from the words they have used, we must give it effect. One rule of interpretation is, that we must never attribute an absurd intent if a sensible one can be extracted from the writing. No absurdity could be greater than a stipulation against suicide in a duel. The words 'die by his own hand, must, therefore, be disconnected from those which follow. Standing alone, they mean any sort of suicide. Besides this, the court was very plainly right in charging that if no such condition had been inserted in the policy, a man who commits suicide is guilty of such a fraud upon the insurers of his life that his representatives cannot recover for that reason alone." Mr. Justice Hunt, delivering the opinion in Terry's case, made an observation in relation to the two cases just cited which is supposed to be favorable to the plaintiff's contention. He said: “In Hartman v. Keystone Ins. Co. the doctrine of Borradaile v. Hunter was adopted, with the confessedly unsound addition that suicide would avoid a policy although there was no condition to that effect in the policy." This observation of the learned justice was irrelevant to the case before the court, and cannot be regarded as determining the point in judgment. If it was meant there could be a recovery by the personal representative of an assured who took out the policy, and who, in sound mind, took his own life- the policy being silent in reference to suicide - we cannot concur in that view.

In N. Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co, v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591, 600, which was an action by the assignee of a life policy, the defence, in part, being that the assignee murdered the assured in order to get the benefit of the policy, Mr. Justice Field, speaking for this court, said: "Independently of any proof of the motives of Hunter [the assignee] in obtaining the policy, and even assuming that they were just and proper, he forfeited all rights under it, when, to secure its immediate payment, he murdered the assured. It would be a reproach to

Opinion of the Court.

the jurisprudence of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the death of a party whose life he had feloniously taken. As well might he recover insurance money upon a building that he had wilfully fired."

In Hatch v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 120 Mass. 550, 552, it .. appears that a policy of insurance on the life of a married woman provided that "if the said person whose life is hereby insured shall die by her own act or hand, whether sane or insane, the policy should be null and void." It was in proof that the assured died by reason of a miscarriage produced by an illegal operation performed upon and voluntarily submitted to by her with intent to cause an abortion, and without any justifiable medical reason for such an operation. The court, observing that this voluntary act on the part of the assured was condemned alike by the laws of nature and by the laws of all civilized States, and was known by the assured to be dangerous to life, said: "We are of opinion that no recovery can be had in this case, because the act on the part of the assured causing death was of such a character that public policy would preclude the defendant from insuring her against its consequences; for we can have no question that a contract to insure a woman against the risk of her dying under or in consequence of an illegal operation for abortion would be contrary to public policy, and could not be enforced in the courts of this Commonwealth." The report of the case shows that it was decided without reference to the questions raised by the special clauses of the policy.

The subject was considered by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Supreme Commandery &c. v. Ainsworth, 71 Alabama, 436, 446. Chief Justice Brickell, delivering the unanimous judgment of that court, said:

"In all contracts of insurance, there is an implied understanding or agreement that the risks insured against are such as the thing insured, whether it is property, or health, or life, is usually subject to, and the assured cannot voluntarily and intentionally vary them. Upon principles of public policy and morals, the fraud, or the criminal misconduct of the assured is, in contracts of marine or of fire insurance, an

Opinion of the Court.

implied exception to the liability of the insurer. Waters v. Merchants' Louisville Ins. Co., 11 Pet. 213; Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Marsh, 41 Penn. St. 386; Chandler v. Worcester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 3 Cush. 328. Death, the risk of life insurance, the event upon which the insurance money is payable, is certain of occurrence; the uncertainty of the time of its occurrence is the material element and consideration of the contract. It cannot be in the contemplation of the parties, that the assured, by his own criminal act, shall deprive the contract of its material element; shall vary and enlarge the risk, and hasten the day of payment of the insurance money. The doctrine asserted in Fauntleroy's case, that death by the hands of public justice, the punishment for the commission of crime, avoids a contract of life insurance, though it is not so expressed in the contract, has not, so far as we have examined, been questioned, though the case itself may have led to the very general introduction of the exception into policies. The same considerations and reasoning which support the doctrine seem to lead, of necessity, to the conclusion, that voluntary, criminal self-destruction, suicide, as defined at common law, should be implied as an exception to the liability of the insurer, or, rather, as not within the risks contemplated by the parties, reluctant as the courts may be to introduce by construction or implication exceptions into such contracts, which usually contain special exceptions." Again: "The fair and just interpretation of a contract of life insurance, made with the assured, is, that the risk is of death proceeding from other causes than the voluntary act of the assured, producing, or intended to produce it;" and that "the extinction of life by disease, or by accident, not suicide, voluntary and intentional, by the assured, while in his senses, is the risk intended; and it is not intended that, without the hazard of loss, the assured may safely commit crime."

In support of the general proposition that the law will not enforce contracts and agreements that are against the public good, and, therefore, are forbidden by public policy, reference is often made to the case of The Amicable Society &c. v. Bolland, 4 Bligh, N. S. 194, 211, known as Fauntleroy's case.