70 FEDKBAL EEPORTEB. �in the event of a loss. Such ia the uniform holding of the Illi- nois cases; and in the case of Bates v. The Equitable Insurance Company, reportedin 10 Wall. 33, the same principle is estab- lished. In that case Philbrick, the party insured, received a pnlicy, and afterwards he wrote upon the baok of the policy, "Payable in case of loss to E. C. Bates," and signed "W. E. Philbrick," who was the original party to whom the policy was issued, and the agent of the company wrote underneath this indorsement by Philbrick as foUows: "Consent iahereby given to the above indorsement. Equitable Insurance Com- pany, by Frederick W. a.rnold, Secretary;" so that it, in legal effect, made the policy precisely like the one now before us ; that is, a case of a policy with loss, if any, payable to E. C. Bates, as his interest may appear. And the supreme court there held that the suit must be maintained in the name of Philbrick ; that Philbrick was the insured, and any breach of the conditions of the policy by Philbrick voided the policy. �The same rule is held in the case of Fitch, reported in 51 m., and in the case of the Home Insurance Company, re- ported in 53 111., so that I have no doubt the law is well set- tled in this state as well as in the federal courts, as I have already stated. �There is a series of cases in the state of New York, com- mencing since the adoption of their code of practice, which requires that ail suits shall be instituted in the name of the party in interest, where the courts have allowed a suit to be prosecuted in the name of the person to whom the loss was payable, where it was made to appear that the entire sum insured, or due, upon the policy, was going to the party bringing the suit, because such person was really the only person actually interested in the event of the suit. And the same rule bas been held in the state of Wisconsin, because the state of Wisconsin has adopted, bodily almost, the New York Code ; and there are a few cases in some of the other states depending upon similar reasons. But the general scope of authority throughout the United States, unless it is otherwise held by reason of some statutory legislation, has been and now is, undoubtedly, that ail this class of policies ��� �
