Beyond this, however, the law will not go, and what are called
ager poUcies, or poKcies taken out by those who have no in-
irest whatever, so that the transaction is a mere wager that the
ssured will recover the amount of the policy before he has paid
sufficient amount in premiums to make the transaction a los-
ig one for him, are contrary to public policy, and illegal, on
le ground that they are gaming contracts and create a tempta-
on to destroy property (and the same is true of wager life
Dlicies as tending to create a temptation to destroy life). In
le case of mortgages, three cases may arise; 1st, the mortgagor
lay insure his interest; 2d, the mortgagee may insure his in-
rest; 3d, the mortgagor may insure the interest of the mort-
igee for the latter's benefit. In the last case, which is the
sual one, the insurance is merely an additional security for
le money loaned, and on a loss any money paid goes to the
ortgagee in reduction of the debt. If there is a surplus it be-
ngs to the mortgagor.* If the mortgagee insures at his own

> Hough V. People's F. Ins. Co., 36 Md. 398; De Forest v. Fulton F. Ins.
>., 1 Hall, 84; Stillwell v. Staples, 19 N. Y. 401.
' Waters v. Monarch, F. & L. Ass. Co., 5 E. & B. 870.
« CoUingridge v. Royal Exch. Ass. Corp., 3 Q. B. D. 173; Ins. Co. v.
jdegraff, 21 Pa. St. 513.
* Kmg V. State M. F. I. Co., 7 Cush. 1; Kemochan v. N. Y. Bowery
I. Co., 17 N. Y. 428.
