This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1878. Excerpt: ... American Popular Life Insurance Company v. Day. instrument itself by which the contract of insurance is effected; they must either be expressly set out or by inference incorporated in the policy. If they are not so they are not warranties, but representations. Bunyon on Life Assur. 34. See, also, May on Ins., 159. In Wlieelton v. Hardisty, 8 El. & B. 232, where a policy of life insurance recited that the assured, being interested in the life of J., were desirous of effecting such assurance as was thereinafter expressed, with the association, and had caused to be delivered into the office of the association a proposal for assurance, in writing, bearing date the 8th of September, 1852, whereby it was declared that the age of said J. did not exceed thirty-five years; that he had not had rupture, or any fit or convulsions since childhood, or gout or asthma, insanity or spitting of blood; that he had not had any habitual cough or any disease of the lungs or heart, or any other disease or disorder tending to the shortening of life, and that the association had hereupon undertaken the proposed assurance, subject to the terms and conditions therein and thereunder expressed, but among the conditions was no reference to the proposal, or its statements or any matter therein contained, it was held that there was no warranty of the truth of the matters recited in the policy to have been declared in the proposal, or any thing in the nature of the contract showing an intention that the truth of these matters should be the basis of the contract. In Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. of L. Cas. 484, it was, indeed, held that misrepresentation in either of two particulars not specified in the statement of the subjects of warranty in the policy, but mentioned in the propos...