“It is not to be concluded, that a disorder with which a person is afflicted before he effects an insurance on his life, is a disorder ‘tending to shorten life,’ within the meaning of a declaration of the insurance offices, from the mere circumstance that he afterwards dies of it, if it be not a disorder necessarily having that tendency. _Watson_ v. _Mainwaring_ (4 _Taunt_ 763). This case turned on the question whether the complaint with which the deceased was afflicted and ultimately died, was an ordinary, or an organic _dyspepsia_. The jury found that it was neither organic nor excessive (_i. e._ at the time of insurance.)” _Chambre_ J.—“All disorders have more or less a tendency to shorten life, even the most trifling; as for instance, corns may end in a mortification; that is not the meaning of the clause: if _dyspepsia_ were a disorder tending to shorten life within this exception, the lives of half the members of the profession of the law would be uninsurable.” If the insurance be for a year, the day of the date[584] is included, (thus a policy effected on the 3d of Sept. 1697 insures the whole of the 3d of Sept. 1698, being a year and a day) but the allowance of fifteen days or more usually given to pay up arrears of premium does not cover a death happening within them, (_Want, Exix_, v. _Blunt_, 12 _East._ 183,) for the contract is, that the _insured_ shall _himself_ pay during his life, not that his executors or administrators shall pay; and personal contracts shall be performed according to the words and apparent meaning of the parties, and not by a performance _cy-pres_; see also _Tarleton_ v. _Stainforth_, 5 _T. R._ 695. The death must happen within the time insured, for if a person, whose life is insured for one year, receive a mortal wound within the year, but does not die till after the year, the insurer would not be liable; _Mr. Justice Willes_, in _Lockyer_ v. _Offley_, 1 _T. R._ 252; but if the insurance were for life, he might pay up his arrears within the fifteen days. It is evident that medical practitioners must have frequent occasion to give testimony on this subject; but it is only necessary for us here to observe, in addition to the general rules of evidence, that the declaration of a wife, whose life had been insured, has been admitted as evidence to prove the state of her health; her husband after her death having brought an action against the insurance company, _Avison_ v. _Lord Kinnaird_; this case is important to medical witnesses in several points. See 2 _Pr. Smith’s R._ 286, 6 _East_. 188. This branch of the law is also important to the faculty, as they must frequently be called upon to justify the medical certificates which the insurance offices uniformly require before they issue a policy, and it continually involves the very nice question as to what shall or shall not be considered a disease tending to shorten, or endanger life.[585]