state courts. In Plunkett v. Supreme Conclave Improved Order of Heptasophs, 105 Virginia, 643, a certificate of membership in the conclave, which was issued to one Charles W. Plunkett, his wife being beneficiary, was considered. One of the conditions was that Plunkett comply with the laws, rules and regulations then governing the conclave or that might in the future be enacted. There was no provision against suicide in the laws, rules or regulations when the certificate was issued. Such a provision was subsequently enacted. Plunkett committed suicide, and the Order refused to pay benefits. Plunkett's wife brought suit to recover them and asserted a vested interest in the benefits under the certificate. The contention was rejected. The trial court held that the forfeiture of the rights under the certificate, if the insured while sane committed suicide, was valid, because (1) it involved no vested right of the insured, and (2) because it was a fundamental, though unexpressed, part of the original contract that the insured should not intentionally cause his own death. And the court added (p. 646): "Inasmuch as the original contract and by-laws were silent upon the subject of suicide by the insured while sane, the new by-law is valid, because there can be no such thing as a vested right for a sane man to commit suicide, and for the further reason that it is nothing more than the written expression of the provision which the law had read into the contract at its inception."

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, quoting the reasoning of the trial court, and added to it the considerations of public policy expressed in the Burt Case and Ritter Case, supra, and other cases. If the public policy of Virginia were the same as, it is contended, that of Wisconsin is, whether this court should have to yield it, we are not called upon to decide.

Being of opinion that McCue's policy was a Virginia contract, it may be unnecessary to review the cases relied

on by the respondents, which they contend declare the public policy of the State of Wisconsin. It may, however, be said that the cases are not absolutely definite.

Two cases only are cited, McCoy v. Northwestern Mutual Relief Association, 92 Wisconsin, 577, and Patterson v. The Natural Premium Ins. Co., 100 Wisconsin, 118. We will not consider the facts in the first case. It is enough to say that the court, following a ruling that it had pronounced in other cases, said (p. 582), “if a contract for life insurance does not provide against liability in case of death by suicide or self-destruction, then such cause of death does not constitute a defense," citing four cases. The second also presented one of suicide, the insured being sane. It was contended that the policy did not cover such a risk, because (1) an incontestable clause (there being one) in the contract, did not cover such a death; (2) if it could be held so in terms it would be void as against public policy; (3) suicide was a crime and hence within a stipulation against death in violation of law.

The reliance of the insurance company to support its contentions was upon the Ritter Case, supra. The court, however, reiterated its former ruling as to death by suicide, though it recognized the cogency of the reasoning of the Ritter Case, that the insured should do nothing to accelerate the contingency of the policy, saying (p. 122): "were the question a new one in the law" the argument, "would be well nigh irresistible especially where, as in the Ritter Case, the policy runs in favor of the estate of the insured, and the proceeds will go to the enrichment of such estate, instead of to other beneficiaries."

There were other beneficiaries in the case, the policy having been assigned with the consent of the company to the children of the insured. Commenting further on that fact, the court said it brought the case within the principle of certain cases which were cited, but added "nor would the application of that principle to this case necessarily

conflict with the Ritter Case, where the policy was in favor of the estate of the insured. It may well be in such a case that the intentional suicide of the insured while sane would prevent a recovery by his personal representatives, and yet not prevent a recovery in case of a policy in favor of beneficiaries who had a subsisting vested interest in the policy at the time of the suicide, and who could not, if they would, prevent the act of the insured." McCue's policy was in favor of his estate and comes within the concession made by the Supreme Court to the reasoning of the Ritter Case.

The court did not discuss considerations of public policy, but we may assume it found nothing offensive to such policy in a contract of insurance which covered death by suicide, and it may be supposed that the court would find nothing repugnant to public policy in a contract which did not except death for crime. However, we need not speculate, as the Wisconsin law does not control the policy in suit.

One other contention of respondents remains to be noticed. It is contended that if the McCue estate cannot recover, the innocent parties, his children, will be admitted as claimants. To this contention we repeat what we have said above, the policy is the measure of the rights of everybody under it, and as it does not cover death by the law there cannot be recovery either by McCue's estate or by his children.

Judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and that of the Circuit Court is

Affirmed.

NEW YORK CONTINENTAL JEWELL FILTRATION COMPANY v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA.

No. 145. Argued December 22, 1911.-Decided February 19, 1912.

The Union Station Act of February 28, 1903, 32 Stat. 909, c. 856, imposed larger liabilities on the railroad company for necessary changes than did the earlier act of February 22, 1901, 31 Stat. 767, c. 353, and provided for the payment of a sum of money to the railroad com. pany. The work contemplated by the later act included material changes whether within or outside of the right of way.

Under the contract made by the plaintiff in this case with the District of Columbia for the latter to make the necessary changes, the District is entitled to be paid for all the work outside of, as well as within, the railroad's right of way.

Independently of the statute, and on the evidence as to the intention of the parties, the contract is properly construed as including work outside of as well as within the right of way.

33 App. D. C. 377, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve the construction of certain acts of Congress for the erection of the Union Station and the elimination of grade-crossings in the District of Columbia, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. James H. Hayden for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edward H. Thomas for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA delivered the opinion of the

court.

Action of assumpsit by plaintiff in error in the Supreme

Court of the District of Columbia to recover the sum of $7,172.97 claimed by it as the amount of unexpended balances of three deposits made by it with the District to cover the cost of certain work undertaken by the District for it.

The case was tried to a jury which, under the instructions of the court, returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,089.79, with interest, upon which judgment was duly entered. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. We shall refer to plaintiff in error as plaintiff and to the defendant in error as the District.

The controversy grows out of work required to be done by certain acts of Congress for the elimination of grade crossings on the line of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company in the city of Washington, and requiring the railroad company to depress and elevate its tracks, and to enable it to relocate parts of its railroad therein, and for other purposes. Act of February 12, 1901, 31 Stat. 767, c. 353. The scheme of improvement was quite extensive and the act described in detail the changes to be made in the grades of streets in connection with the change of the location of the railroad company's tracks and station.

Section 9 of the act is the one with which we have most concern. It provides as follows, omitting parts not essential to be quoted:

"SEC. 9. That the entire cost and expenses of the revision, changes, relocations, and improvements of and in said railroad, as authorized and required by the preceding sections of this Act, and of all structures connected therewith or incidental thereto, shall be borne, paid, and defrayed in manner following, to wit: The said Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company shall bear, pay, and defray all cost and expenses of relocation, elevation, and depression of its tracks within the limits of its right of way as are authorized and required by this Act.

All other costs, expenses and damages resulting from, in