* * *" In American Nat. Bank of Okmulgee v. King et al., 158 Okla. 278, 13 P.2d 164, a bank was attempting to recover proceeds of life policies carried by its defaulting president which were payable to his widow and children. It appeared from the evidence that virtually all of the premiums had been paid while he was in default to the bank, and that at the time he committed suicide he was indebted to the bank in the sum of about $221,000. The court said (page 167 of 13 P.2d: "The insured was a married man. He was the father of two minor children.

His wife and children, however, were named as beneficiaries. In denying the right of the creditors to take the proceeds of the policies after the suicide of the assured, the court cited with approval the case of American National Bank of Okmulgee v. King et al., 158 Okla. 278, 13 P.2d 164. In that case, a bank was attempting to recover the proceeds of life insurance policies carried by its defaulting president.

However, this court does not place the decision here upon that basis, but upon the broad ground upon which the Tennessee court may also have relied, that the fiduciary who obtains property by breach of his obligations of confidence cannot equitably retain it. American National Bank v. King, 158 Okla. 278, 13 P.2d 164, deserves but slight consideration upon this issue. The court there held that a finding by the lower court that the premiums upon life insurance policies of its defaulting president were not paid by moneys of the bank was not against a fair preponderance of the evidence.

However, in the case of Johnson v. Roberts et al., 124 Okla. 68, 254 P. 88, and First State Bank v. Conn, 136 Okla. 294, 277 P. 928, it has construed sections 6726 and 6727 of the Oklahoma statutes as "Exemption Statutes," and definitely announced that they should be liberally construed to effectuate their purpose. In the case of American National Bank v. King, 13 P.2d 164, the Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly follows the doctrine stated in Brown v. Home Insurance Company, supra. This same doctrine has been announced in the Western District of Oklahoma by Judge Cotteral in Re Oscar A. Mitscher, which case, however, was not reported.

Court of Appeals, Division 1, upon wife's appeal, affirmed trial court's impressment of a constructive trust on the real and personal property, but modified the trust on insurance proceeds. The court, relying on American National Bank of Okmulgee v. King, 158 Okla. 278, 13 P.2d 164, said "only that part of the funds that the trial court found was used to pay for the payments of the policies while deceased was employed for appellee . . . together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from date of judgment . . . until paid" are subject to a constructive trust in favor of motor company. Motor company, after motion for rehearing was denied, sought certiorari.

In other jurisdictions the doctrine is that recovery in such a situation is limited to the amount of the premiums paid by the insured with wrongfully acquired money of another. Board of Public Instruction v. Mathis, 132 Fla. 289, 181 So. 147; Thum v. Wolstenholme, 21 Utah 446, 61 P. 537; Succession of Onorato, 219 La. 1, 51 So.2d 804, 24 A.L.R. 2d 656; American Nat. Bank v. King, 158 Okla. 278, 13 P.2d 164; Hubbard v. Stapp, 32 Ill. App. 541. This court has not considered or determined the rule which should govern in such a situation and it is not necessary to decide it in this case.

These cases follow this reasoning: Vorlander et al. v. Keyes, 8 Cir., 1 F.2d 67; Brown v. New York Life Ins. Co. et al., D.C., 58 F. Supp. 252, affirmed, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 246; Shaler et al. v. Trowbridge et al., 28 N.J. Eq. 595; McConnell v. Henochsberg et al., 11 Tenn. App. 176; Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Josselyn et al., 224 Mich. 159, 194 N.W. 548; Holmes v. Gilman et al., 138 N.Y. 369, 34 N.E. 205, 20 L.R.A. 566; Jansen v. Tyler et al., 151 Or. 268, 47 P.2d 969, 49 P.2d 372; Truelsch v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. et al., 186 Wis. 239, 202 N.W. 352, 38 A.L.R. 914. Other courts are of the view that recovery is limited to the amount of premiums paid with the misappropriated money. Board of Public Instruction for Bay County v. Mathis et al., 132 Fla. 289, 181 So. 147; American Nat. Bank of Okmulgee v. King et al., 158 Okla. 278, 13 P.2d 164; Thum v. Wolstenholme, 21 Utah 446, 61 P. 537. The Supreme Court of Georgia held in the case of Bennett v. Rosborough et al., 155 Ga. 265, 116 S.E. 788, 26 A.L.R. 1397, that due to the exemption the proceeds of life insurance cannot be reached even in case of fraud.