“Thus in an action on a policy made on the life of _Sir James Ross_, for one year from _October 1759_ to _October 1760, warranted in good health at the time of making the policy_; the fact was, that _Sir James_ had received a wound at the battle of La Feldt in the year 1747, in his loins, which had occasioned a partial relaxation or palsy, so that he could not retain his urine or fœces, and which was not mentioned to the insurer. _Sir James_ died of a malignant fever within the time of the insurance. All the physicians and surgeons who were examined for the plaintiff, swore that the wound had no sort of connection with the fever; and that the want of retention was not a disorder that shortened life, but he might, notwithstanding that, have lived to the common age of man; and the surgeons who opened him said, that his intestines were all sound. There was one physician examined for the defendant, who said, the want of retention was paralytic; but being asked to explain, he said it was only a local palsy, arising from the wound, but did not affect life; but upon the whole he did not look upon him as a good life. “_Lord Mansfield._—The question of fraud cannot exist in this case. When a man make insurance on a life generally, without any representation of the state of the life insured, the insurer takes all the risk, unless there was some fraud in the person insuring, either by his suppressing some circumstance which he knew, or by alleging what was false. But if the person insuring knew no more than the insurer, the latter takes the risk. In this case there is a warranty, and wherever that is the case, it must at all events be proved that the party was a good life, which makes the question on a warranty much larger than that on a fraud. Here it is proved that there was no representation at all, as to the state of life, &c. But where there is a warranty, then nothing need be told; but it must in general be proved, if litigated, _that the life was in fact a good one, and so it may be, though he have a particular infirmity_. The only question is, _Whether he was in a reasonable good state of health, and such a life as ought to be insured on common terms?_” The jury upon this direction, without going out of court, found a verdict for the plaintiff. _Ibid._ 1 _Black. Rep._ 312. In _Willis_ v. _Poole_, which was on a case of gout,[583] the same learned judge said, “_Such a warranty can never mean that a man has not the seeds of disorder_. We are all born with the seeds of mortality in us. A man subject to the gout is a life capable of being insured, if he has no sickness at the time to make it an unequal contract. _Park_ 650.