RECENT CASES. 313 quent suit between the same parties, plaintiff sued as the assignee of a right of a third party against defendant, arising upon a different chose in action, the assignment having been made after the breach of such second contract by defendant. Held, that a fact found to be true by the former adjudication is not res judicata in the latter suit. Fuller V. Ins. Co., 35 Atl. Rep. 766 (Conn.). The decision of the court seems sound. The assignee of a chose in action, being subject to the same defences as the assignor, may be regarded as the representative of the latter, and the first judgment in personam against the assignee individually could not have been taken advantage of as res judicata by the assignor, his principal, who was a stranger to it. Petrie v. Nuttall^ 11 Exch. 569. Injunction — " Picketing " by Strikers. — Workmen kept a patrol in front of the shop of an employer with whom they had a dispute, to prevent other workmen from entering his employ. They had already been enjoined from using intimidation. Held, that their acts were not justified by their motive of getting better wages for them- selves, and the picketing must be enjoined altogether. Vegelahn v. Gunter, 44 N. E. Rep. 1077 (Mass.). See Notes. Insurance — Insurable Interest in a Life. — The appellant issued to the ap- pellee a policy for $2,000 on the life of his mother, who was, at the time, seventy-six years old, and was being supported by the son. There was nothing in the appellee's complaint to show that he expected any pecuniary advantage, in the way of maintenance, service, or the like, from the continuance of the life of his mother. Neither the mother nor the son was under legal liability to support the other. Held, that the appellee had no in- surable interest in the life of the assured. People's Mut. Ben. Soc. v. Templeton, 44 N. E. Rep. 809 (Ind.). In England, although it is hard to reconcile some cases, it seems to be the law that a policy is supported by an interest derived from relationship alone in case the party obtaining the policy has a legal claim for support upon the assured. Bliss on Insur- ance, 16. It is said to be the established rule in the United States that the interest must be of a pecuniary nature, relationship alone not being sufficient. 7 Am. Dee. 42, note, where American authorities are reviewed. But see Bliss on Ins., 27-33. ^^ has been held in England, in agreement with the principal case, that a son had no in- surable interest in the life of his father, a pauper, dependent upon the son for support. Schilling V. Ins. Co., 27 L. J. Exch. 16. See also Life Ins. Co. v. Hogan, 80 111. 35. In Ins. Co. V Kane, 81 Pa. St. 154, the court held, resting its decision in part upon relationship and in part upon the legal liability of the son to support the assured, that there was an insurable interest. This Pennsylvania decision seems wholly illogical, as legal liability on the part of the beneficiary to support the assured would naturally tend to negative insurable interest. Insurance — Revocation of Policy. — Where the insurers had unwarrantably declared a life policy forfeited, held, that the assured might regard the contract rescinded, and recover from the insurers the paid premiums with interest. Van IVerden V. Equitable Life Ass. Soc, 68 N. W. Rep. 892 (Iowa). It is difficult to see how there can be a rescission of the policy, for recissions re- quire that the parties be placed in the position they held before the contract ; Pollock on Contracts, 6th ed., 563 ; and the insurers have undergone a risk which cannot be repaired. But the policy is, of course, still good, and by a yearly tender of premiums a right of recovery may be retained for the executors of the assured. 2 Biddle on Insur- ance, § 1197. On the theory of anticipatory breach, however, an action might be had for damages now ; and while the view taken by the court here is supported {McA'ee v. Phanix Co., 28 Mo. 383), it is more satisfactory to regard it as a question of damages. The amount of damages to be recovered would logically seem to oe the difference be- tween the amount the assured would have to pay in premiums for another policy of the same value and the amount he would have had to pay on the cancelled policy, both amounts to be computed with reference to the probable*^ duration of life of the assured. Barney v. Dudley, 42 Kan. 212. Judgments — Effect of Appeal. — Held, in quo warranto proceedings against a public officer, that a judgment of ouster divests such officer at once of all official authority, notwithstanding the fact that an appeal from this judgment is taken and an appeal bond filed, the effect of which, under the Washington code, is to "stay proceed- ings on the judgment." F vcett v. Superior Court of Pierce County, 46 Pac. Rep. 389 (Wash.). Such a decision as this may evidently lead to great irregularity in the administration of public affairs, but that it represents a well settled rule of procedure is apparent from the authorities cited in the opinion of the court. See especially People v. Ste7>cnsou, 57 N. W. Rep. 115; State v. IVoodson, 31 S. W. Rep. 105; Allen v. Robinson, 17 Minn. 4a
