The great minister of the past century died insolvent, and from this arose one of those actions, which at once confirm a law and establish a principle. In 1803 William Pitt was indebted to Godsoll and Co., his coachmakers, upwards of 1000_l._ To secure some part of this in the event of his demise, they assured his life for seven years with the Pelican Company, for 500_l._ at the rate of 3_l._ 3_s._ per cent. In 1806, three years after this, the premier died without sufficient assets to meet his liabilities. The greatness of his services to the country, the fact that he had died in debt being a proof of his self-abnegation, demanded an acknowledgment, and the state very properly determined to pay his creditors. This was not sufficient for the coachmakers; an immediate claim was made by them for payment of the 500_l._ assured. As Godsoll and Co., however, had received the entire amount of their bill when Mr. Pitt’s other debts were discharged, the Pelican refused to pay, on the ground that their insurable interest in the life of the deceased had been terminated by the payment of his debts, and that as the insurance was to meet a special debt, since discharged, they could not recover. On the one hand, Godsoll and Co., possessed an insurable interest at and from the time of the opening the policy, to the death of Mr. Pitt. On the other, the assurance being for a special purpose, to procure the payment of a debt otherwise discharged, there could be no justice in paying it twice. The company therefore offered to return the premiums, but refused to pay the policy. There was an immense amount of special pleading by the counsel of Godsoll and Co. to make the worse appear the better cause. It was contended that, having had the necessary insurable interest up to the death of Mr. Pitt, the after payment of his debts did not vitiate their right; that, in other words, having paid the premiums for a special purpose, which purpose was effected, they ought to receive their 500_l._ instead of being satisfied with the return of the mere premiums. It was now to be resolved whether, under any form or by any subtlety of argument, the statute which said so distinctly an insurable interest was necessary, could be broken through. Had Godsolls carried their point, every creditor might have insured the life of his debtor and received a double payment of his debt. Every tradesman in London might have speculated on his customers’ health, and the act which was to destroy gambling policies, would have been practically repealed. The judgment of Lord Ellenborough, when he gave the decision in favour of the Pelican, is worth transcribing.