The rule here is the same as in marine insurance. (i) Any interest which would be recognized by a court of law or equity, is an insurable interest; (j) 1 but not a mere expectancy or probable interest, however well grounded it may be. (k) Thus one who has orally agreed to buy a building, cannot insure that building; but if the agreement could be enforced in equity, either because it was in writing or by reason of part performance, the purchaser would then have an insurable interest. (l)1 So if the insured has assigned his property to pay his debts, we should say that he retained an insurable interest until the property is sold, even without evidence that the property would more than pay his debts; although in a case in which this question * arose, it was held that evidence of some surplus was requisite. (m)

(i) The proof of an application for insurance and of a policy issuing thereon, both of which describe the property insured as the property of the plaintiffs, is prima facie evidence of title and of an insurable interest in the plaintiffs in an action upon the policy. Nichols v. Fayette Ins. Co. 1 Allen, 63.

(j) Tyler v. AEtna Ins. Co. 12 Wend. 507, 16 id. 385; Swift v. Vt. Ins. Co. 18 Vt. 305. Where a moiety of a building insured by a company, was conveyed in fee, the grantor reserving a term of seven years therein, and the grantee immediately reconveyed the same to the grantor on mortgage, and the mortgagee demised it to the mortgagor and another for seven years, reserving rent, it was held, that the company was liable in case of loss, notwithstanding such conveyances. Stetson v. Mass. Ins. Co. 4 Mass. 330. See Morrison v. Tennessee Ins. Co. 18 Misso. 262. Where a party holds the legal title, and the equitable title is in another, he has an insurable interest. Thus, where one has made an agreement for the sale of his real estate insured, but has not made a conveyance nor received the purchase-money, his interest in the property and policy is not thereby parted with so as to bar his right of action on the happening of a loss. Perry Co. Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 19 Penn. State, 45. See also Ins. Co. v. Updegraff, 21 Penn. State, 513; Norcross v. ins. Co. 17 Penn. State, 429.

(k) Lucena v. Craufurd, 5 B. & P. 324, per Lord Eldon. One has no insurable interest in a house erected on land of another without license or shadow of title. Sweeny v Franklin Ins. Co. 20 Penn. State, 337. "But he has an insurable interest if his house was placed on another's land with the owner's consent." Fletcher v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 18 Pick. 419. A party has no insurable interest on goods for which he has made an oral contract, where the sale of such goods is within the statute of frauds. Stockdale v. Dunlop, 6 M. & W. 224. It is held in Ohio, that a stockholder in an incorporated company has no insurable interest in its property. Phillips v. Knox Co. Ins. Co. 20 Ohio, 174.

1 Commonwealth v. Hide & Leather Ins. Co. 112 Mass. 136; Sturm v. Atlantic Ins. Co. 63 N. Y. 77; Shaw v. AEtna Ins. Co. 49 Mo. 578. The test is whether a party may suffer loss. Cone v. Niagara Ins. Co. 60 N. Y. 619. The following have been held to have an insurable interest: one who has conveyed his land as security, taking an instrument of defeasance, Walsh v. Philadelphia Fire Ass. 127 Mass. 383; a mortgagor after foreclosure with a right to redeem, Cone v. Niagara Ins. Co. 60 N. Y. 619; the holder of an equitable title, Redfield v. Holland Ins. Co. 56 N. Y. 354; a mechanic's lien-holder, Ins. Co. v. Sanson, 103 U. S. 25; a vendee in possession before price paid, Holbrook v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 25 Minn. 229; a creditor in the land of a debtor with insufficient personalty, Ronrbach v. Germania Ins. Co. 62 N. Y. 47; a sub-lessee, Fowle v. Springfield Ins. Co. 122 Mass. 191; a railroad in exposed property adjoining, Monadnock R. Co. v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co. 113 Mass. 77; an obligor on a warehouse bond in the goods, Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 95 U. S. 547; a purchaser of goods not separated who had advanced the price to the seller on an agreement that the latter give them free storage, deliver them as wanted, and insure to protect advances, which was done in the purchaser's name, Cumberland Bone Co. v. Andes Ins. Co. 64 Me. 466; and a buyer of property under an agreement (in a note given for the purchase-money) stipulating that the title shall remain in the seller until the note is paid. Reed v. Williamsburg Ins. Co. 74 Me. 537. See Hidden v. Slater Ins. Co. 2 Clifford, 266, as to a lessor's insuring a lessee's interest.

A partner may have an insurable interest in a building purchased with partnership funds, although it stands upon land owned by the other partner. (n)

A mortgagor may certainly insure the whole value of his property; nor does the possession of the mortgagee, (o) nor the seizure of his property, or even its sale on execution, divest him of his insurable interest, (p) provided he still retains the power of redeeming it. And in case of loss the insurers are responsible for the whole value of the property insured, to the extent of their insurance. (q) 2

A mortgagor and a mortgagee may severally insure the same property, each calling it his own property, and neither specifying his interest. But in the settlement of losses under such policies questions have arisen which may not yet be settled. It would

(l) McGivney v. Phoenix Ins. Co. 1 Wend. 85.

(m) Lazarus v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 19 Pick. 81,5 id. 7 6. A person discharged by the Insolvent Debtors' Court as an insolvent debtor, effected an insurance on some property acquired by him before the insolvency. The property having been destroyed by fire, the order for his discharge was afterwards annulled on the ground of fraud, and he was adjudged to imprisonment. In a suit on the policy, he was held to have an insurable interest. Marks v. Hamilton, 7 Exch. 323, 9 Eng. L. & Eq. 503. See also Dadmun Manuf. Co. v. Worcester Ins. Co. 11 Met. 429.