[257] Supra, p. 98.
[258] Heuston v. Simpson, 115 Ind., 62.
[259] Fraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich., 206. In this case the testimony was admitted on the ground that the representative could waive the privilege. See Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo., 160.
[260] In re Benson (Monroe County Court), 16 N. Y. Supp., 111 (1891). Some States have statutory provisions for the qualification of physicians as examiners in lunacy, e.g., Laws of Col., 1893, c. 119, s. 5; Laws of N. Y., 1874, c. 446, t. 1, art. 1, s. 1. The bearing of these provisions upon the statutory privilege has not been made clear.
[261] In matter of Baird, 11 N. Y. State Rep., 263 (1887).
[262] In matter of Hoyt, 20 Abb. N. C. (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1887).
[263] 13 N. Y. W. D., 505 (1880).
[264] Dilleber v. Home L. I. Co., 13 N. Y. W. D., 505 (1881).
[265] The following cases in which the rule has been enforced have arisen out of contracts of life insurance: Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. v. Beck, 77 Ind., 203; Excelsior Mut. Aid Assn. v. Riddle, 91 Ind., 84; Penn Mut. L. I. Co. v. Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Ætna L. I. Co. v. Denning, 123 Ind., 390; Lunz v. Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Edington v. Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185; Grattan v. Metrop. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; s. p., 92 N. Y., 274; Conn. Mut. L. I. Co. v. Union Tr. Co., 112 U. S., 250.
[266] See Renihan v. Dennin. 103 N. Y., 573, dictum to same effect.