under the will or by distribution.' An administrator, where the personal estate is insufficient to pay the debts, but when the personality is sufficient, quere ?*

Tenants-Married women, etc.

4

SEC. 303. A tenant for a term has an insurable interest to the extent of the value of his leasehold interest; and a tenant who erects buildings under a right to remove them, may insure them as his own." A tenant by curtesy or dower."

A tenant in tail.'

A married woman in her own estate, and her husband, where by law he is given a present interest therein.

Where the plaintiff's wife was the owner of real estate in her own right, and two days after her marriage, in consideration of her indebtedness to him before her marriage, executed to him a paper of the following tenor: "I do hereby certify that I owe to J. Rohrback (the husband) the sum of $700, and the sum of $25, for each and every month from July 14th, 1863, and for every month he may live with me henceforth, without any deduction whatever, which amount shall be a lien upon my property." And the husband procured an insurupon the property. It was held, in an action upon the policy, that, under the statute of New York relative to married women, that this created a lien upon her property that constituted a sufficient insurable interest; but if the husband, having no present legal or equitable interest therein, takes a policy in his own name, it is bad." Or, indeed, any person who has a certain, definite, or fixed interest in the property, so that an injury thereto or destruction thereof would result in pecuniary loss to him as a purchaser under execution before a conveyance has been made to him."

Savage v. Howard Ins. Co., 52 N. Y. 502; Herkimer v. Rice, ante; Phelps v. Gebhard, 9 Bos. (N. Y.) 504.

Harris v. York, etc., Ins. Co., 50 Penn. St. 341; Ins. Co. v. Drake, 2 B. Mon. (Ky.) 4.

7 Curry v. Commonwealth Ins. Co., 10 Pick. (Mass.) 535.

Mutual Ins. Co. v. Deale, 18 Md. 26.

Rohrback v. Etna Ins. Co., 1 T. & C. (N. Y.) 339.

10 Eminence, etc., Ins. Co. v. Jesse, 1 Met. (Ky.) 523.

"Etna, etc. Ins. Co. v. Miers, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 139; Herkimer v. Rice, ante; Rohrback v. Germania F. Ins. Co., ante.

Receiptor or bailee.

SEC. 304. A receiptor of property attached, or any person who, at the request of the owner, becomes security for its return to the officer seizing or attaching it.'

Agent, trustee, bailee.

SEC. 305. An agent, bailee, trustee or any person having the custody of property for another, who is responsible for its safe return."

Each joint owner or tenant in common.

3

SEC. 306. One partner to the extent of his interest in the property of the firm; and a policy in the name of one partner will only cover his legal interest therein, unless through ignorance, fraud or mistake on the part of the insurer, the policy was issued in the name of one owner, when it should have issued in the name of all. Even where the partnership is merely nominal, and the business is really carried on for the benefit of one of them, a policy may be taken out in the name of the firm, because in such a case, all the persons who permit their names to be used as partners are liable for the debts of the firm, and therefore have an interest in the preservation of the property."

Profits.

SEC. 307. A person who has an interest in the profits of property, or in the cargo of a ship, may insure the same." But when profits are insured it must be qua profits; but the profits need not be specifically defined. It is enough if the policy covers the profits as "on profits" in connection with an insurance on a business of any kind. In ascertaining the profits, they are to be treated as a mere excresence upon the value of the goods beyond prime cost. The gain over the cost."

In personal property, the owner has an insurable interest as a mat

1 Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Powell, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 311.

Etna Ins. Co. v. Hall, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 411; Franklin Ins. Co. v. Coates, 14 Md. 285; Graham v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 2 Dis. (Ohio) 255.

'Converse v. Citizen's Mut. Ins. Co., 10 Cush. (Mass.) 37; Ohl v. Eagle Ins. Co., 4 Mass. (U. S.) 172.

Bailey v. Hope Ins. Co., 56 Me. 474.

Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Webster, 59 Penn. St. 227.

Phanix Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 14 Wall (U. S.) 504.

Patapsio Ins. Co. v. Coulter, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 222; New York Ins. Co. v. Robinson, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 616.

Sun Fire Office v. Wright, 3 N. & M. 819; Bennett's F. I. C. 449; Leonards v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 2 Rob. (La.) 131; Elmaker v. Franklin Ins. Co., 5 Penn. St. 183; Niblo v. N. A. Ins. Co., 1 Sandf. (N. Y.) 551; Menzies v. N. British Ins. Co., 9 C. C. S. (Sc.) 694.

3

ter of course, so also has a consignee thereof;' the carrier; a commission merchant; both the vendor and vendee in cases where the sale is conditional, and the title is not passed absolutely. Thus, the vendor in a contract of sale of a factory and machinery who retained the legal title until payment of the purchase was held to have an insurable interest both in the building and machinery, and his interest was held to be a legal and not an equitable interest; but when the title absolutely passes, the interest ends; an attaching creditor.'

Master of a vessel.

6

SEC. 308. So it is held that the master of a vessel who is entitled to primage on freight, has an insurable interest to the extent of such primage. So, too, the master of a vessel, although in fact, having no property in the cargo, yet, being the legal owner of the whole cargo, and the equitable owner of a part of it, has an insurable interest in the whole."

Creditors under execution levied on property.

SEC. 309. Some question has been made whether a judgment creditor has aninsurable interest in the real etatse or property of his debtor. If an execution has been issued, and a levy made, there is no question but that such an interest exists in the property levied upon, at least in the sheriff or officer making the levy, where he is responsible for the safe keeping of the property, if not in the creditors themselves. But there

1 Parks v. General Interest Assurance Co., 5 Pick. (Mass.) 34. A consignee generally cannot insure beyond the extent of his personal interest, which is the probable amount of commissions that will inure to him from the sale of the goods, but if he is directed by his principals to insure the goods, he may take a policy for their value, for his own protection, he acting as trustee for the owners, and in an action upon the policy, these facts are sufficient to establish his insurable interest. Shaw v. Ætna Ins. Co., 49 Mo. 578.

Savage v. Corn Exchange Ins. Co., 36 N. Y. 655; Chase v. Washington, etc., Ins. Co., 4 Bos. (N. Y.) 1.

Forest v. Fulton Ins. Co., 1 Hall (N. Y.) 84; Putnam v. Mercantile Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Met. (Mass.) 386.

Tallman v, Atlantic F. & M. Ins. Co., 4 Abb. (N. Y.) App. Dec. 345; Kenness v. Clarkson, 1 John. (N. Y.) 385; M'Gevney v. Phanix Ins. Co., 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 85; Rider v. Ocean Ins. Co., 20 Pick. (Mass.) 259; Shotwell v. Jefferson Ins. Co., 5 Bos. (N. Y.) 247; Ayers v. Hartford Ins. Co., 17 Iowa, 176.

Wood v. N. Western Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 421.

Stuart v. Columbian Ins. Co., 2 Cr. C. C. (U. S.) 442.

"Mickles v. Rochester City Bank, ante; Mapes v. Coffin, ante; Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Allen, ante.

"Pedrick v. Fisher, 1 Sprague, 565. (Primage is a duty at the water side due to the master of a ship, and the mariners, for the use of his cables and ropes, to discharge the goods of the merchant, and to the mariners for lading and unlading in any port or haven. 3 Tomlin's Law Dic. 215.)

'Buck v. Chespeake Ins. Co., 1 Peters (U. S) 151.

can be no question but that the creditors under such execution, as such, have an insurable interest in the property,' and the fact that the sheriff is liable to them for any loss that might arise from the destruction of the property, would not divest them of that right, as they have a right to rely upon the property itself to liquidate their claims, and are not compelled to pursue a personal remedy.

'Mickles v. Rochester City Bank, 11 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 118; Mapes v. Coffin, 5 id. 296; Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Ällen, 43 N. Y. 389.

2 STORY, J., in Hancox v. Fishing, 3 Sum. (U. S.) 132.

CHAPTER IX.

ALIENATION.

SEC. 311. SEC. 312.

SEC. 313.

SEC. 314.

SEC. 315.

SEC. 310. Contract personal.

Alienation defeats policy, whether so provided or not.
Void sale.

Assignment avoids, when.

When insurer knows risk is shifting, does not apply.
Alienation avoids policy, when.

SEC. 310. The contract, being one of indemnity, is purely personal, and does not run with the thing insured; as if buildings are insured, it does not run with the land, and if the premises are sold, it ceases to operate as a protection, either to the vendor or vendee; and the same rule prevails in reference to mere personalty. But the contract, and consequently the indemnity, can be kept on foot and made operative in favor of a vendee by the act of the insurer; that is, by the insurer consenting to transfer its liability under the contract to the