In Peacock v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 20.N. Y. 293, 396, it is stated:
“The word ‘health,’ as ordinarily used, is a relative term. It has reference to the condition of the body. Thus it is frequently characterized as perfect, as good, as indifferent, and as bad. The epithet ‘good’ is comparative. It does not require absolute perfection. When, therefore, one is described as being in good health, that does not necessarily nor ordinarily mean that he is absolutely free from all and every ill which ‘flesh is heir to.’ ”
See, also, Morrison v. Ins. Co., 59 Wis. 162, 18 N. W. 13; Grattan v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 92 N. Y. 274, 44 Am. Rep. 372; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. McTague, 49 N. J. Law 587, 9 Atl. 766, 60 Am. Rep. 661.
In Thompson v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 13 N. D. 444, 101 N. W. goo, the stipulation in the policy stated, “This policy shall not take effect unless the first premium is actually paid while the assured is in good health.” The Court said:
“It will be noted that this provision is not a mere representation that the assured was in good health, or a statement of his belief or opinion that such was the fact. It is equivalent to a warranty of the fact, and it is a fact agreed upon by the parties as a condition precedent to the attacking of defendant’s liability. Apparent good health was not sufficient. The fact that a disease may be latent and unknown does not relieve the insured from his stipulation. It is the fact of good health which governs.”
In Donahue v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 37 N. D. 203, 221, 164 N. W. 50, 36, (L. R. A. 1918A, 300,) Justice Christianson stated:
“The term ‘good health’ is a comparative term and should be held to mean what is ordinarily understood by the term.”
See Murphy v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 106 Minn. 112, 118 N. W. 355. Note 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1145; 43 L. R.A. (N. S.) 726; L. R. A. " I916F, 173.
In this record there is rio expert or medical testimony concerning the good or ill health of the insured subsequent to the approval of the application. The determination of the health of the insured subsequent to the approval of the application is dependent wholly as a question of fact; upon lay testimony, unless this court imbued with the wisdom to be gleaned from medical science can determine, as it were like experts, as a matter of law, the question of good or ill health. The reason why the aid of medical science was not sought to be placed in the record,
