Whether a past or present event can be a condition in the true sense of the term,1 the validity of a contract is frequently made to turn upon the happening or not happening of such an event; and as far as the validity of the contract is concerned, full effect is given to such provision.2 Provisions in insurance contracts making the validity of the contract conditioned upon the existence of certain facts, are given full force and effect as far as the validity of the contract itself is concerned.3 In contracts of fire insurance breach of a so-called condition as to the existing state of the title or the possession of the property prevents the contract from existing.4 If the contract provides that it shall be void if the building which is insured is on ground not owned by the insured, such policy is void if such building is upon land which the owner of the building has leased.5 Insurance taken by a husband in his name upon a homestead, the title to which is in the wife, is invalid under such a clause,6 and after loss, the husband can not ignore the specific provisions of the contract and recover on the theory that he had an insurable interest on such property.7 The fact that the title has been transferred from the husband to the wife under a statute which makes such transfers void as against third persons, does not prevent the title from passing as between husband and wife; and, accordingly, the insurance company is not to be regarded as a third person within the meaning of such statutory provision.8 Such a condition is broken if insurance is effected by a vendor who has entered into an unconditional contract of sale.9 The fact that the contract has not been recorded and that the title still stands on the record in the name of the vendor, does not prevent a breach of such condition.10 Conversely, the vendee is to be regarded as the owner,11 even if the policy is conditioned upon the insured's being the unconditional and sole owner.12 One to whom a conveyance in fee has been made is the sole and unconditional owner,13 although he has not paid the entire purchase price and although the realty is subject to a vendor's lien.14

16 See Sec. 2054.

1 See Sec. 2591.

2 Colorado. National Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 44 Colo. 472, 98 Pac. 634 [sub nomine, Duncan v. National Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 340].

Florida. Insurance Co. of North America v. Erickson, 50 Fla. 419, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 512, 39 So. 495.

Illinois. Sterricker v. McBride, 157 III. 70, 41 N. E. 744.

Indiana. Miller v. Nugent, 12 Ind. App. 348, 40 N. E. 282.

Maine. Carleton v. Patrons' Androscoggin Mut. F. Ins. Co., 109 Me. 79, 89 L. R. A. (N.S.) 951, 82 Atl. 649.

Minnesota. Parson, Rich & Co. v. Lane, 97 Minn. 98 [sub nomine, In re Millers' & Mfr's' Ins. Co., 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 231, 106 N. W. 485].

Nebraska. Madsen v. Farmers' & M. Ins. Co., 87 Neb. 107, 29 L. R. A. (N.S.) 97, 126 N. W. 1086.

Oklahoma. Deming Investment Co. v. Shawnee F. Ins. Co., 16 Okla. 1, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 607, 83 Pac. 918; Eminent Household of Col. Woodmen v. Prater, 24 Okla. 214, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 917, 103 Pac. 558.

South Dakota. Dodson v. Crocker, 16 S. D. 481, 94 N. W. 391.

Texas. Supreme Lodge v. Payne, 101 Tex. 449, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1277, 108 S. W. 1160.

Wisconsin. Harran v. Klaus, 79 Wis. 383, 48 N. W. 479.

3 Colorado. National Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Duncan, 44 Colo. 472, 98 Pac. 634 [sub nomine, Duncan v. National Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 340].

Florida. Insurance Co. v. Erickson, 50 Fla. 419, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 512, 39 So. 495.

Maine. Carleton v. Patrons' Androscoggin Mut. F. Ins. Co., 109 Me. 79, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 951, 82 Atl. 649.

Minnesota. Parsons, Rich & Co. v. Lane, 07 Minn. 08 [sub nomine, In re Millers' & Mfr's' Ins. Co., 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 231, 106 N. W. 485].

Nebraska. Madsen v. Farmers' & M. Ins. Co., 87 Neb. 107, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 97, 126 N. W. 1086.

Oklahoma. Deming Investment Co. v. Shawnee F. Ins. Co., 16 Okla. 1, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 607, 83 Pac. 018; Eminent Household v. Prater, 24 Okla. 214, 23 L. R. A. (N.S.) 017, 103 Pac. 558.

Texas. Supreme Lodge v. Payne, 101 Tex. 440, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1277, 108 S. W. 1160.

4 Sharman v. Continental Ins. Co, 167 Cal. 117, 52 L. R. A. (N.S.) 670, 138 Pac. 708; Insurance Co. v. Erick-son, 50 Fla. 410, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 512, 30 So. 405; Wyandotte Brewing Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 144 Mich. 440, 6LR.A. (N.S.) 852, 108 N. W. 303; Bacot v. Phenix Ins. Co., 06 Miss. 223, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1226, 50 So. 720. .

5 Wyandotte Brewing Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 144 Mich. 440, 6 L. R. A. (N.S.) 852, 108 N. W. 303.

6 Bacot v. Phenix Ins. Co., 06 Miss. 223, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1226, 50 So. 720.

7 Bacot v. Phenix Ins. Co., 06 Miss. 223, 25 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1226, 50 So. 720.

8 Groce v. Phenix Ins. Co., 04 Miss. 201, 22, L. R. A. (N.S.) 732, 48 So. 208.

9 Sharman v. Continental Ins. Co., 167 Cal. 117, 52 L. R. A. (N.S.) 670, 138 Pac. 708; Insurance Co. v. Erick-son, 50 Fla. 410, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 512, 30 So. 405.

10 Sharman v. Continental Ins. Co., 167 Cal. 117, 52 L. R. A. (N.S.) 670, 138 Pac. 708; Insurance Co. v. Erick-son, 50 Fla. 410, 2 L. R. A. (N.S.) 512, 30 So. 405.

11 Arkansas Ins. Co. v. Cox, 21 Okla. 873, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 775, 08 Pac. 552; Evans v. Crawford County Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co., 130 Wis. 180, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 485, 100 N. W. 052.

The general principle that conditions are to be construed strictly, if they will result in total forfeiture,15 applies to conditions of this sort.16 An outstanding contingent dower interest to which the insured holds subject, does not prevent him from being the owner in fee within the meaning of such a condition.17 Such a condition does not defeat insurance of undivided interests,18 such as an interest in a party wall,19 or an interest in partnership property, the title to which is in the surviving partners and the heir of a deceased partner.10 The fact that the land is a homestead claim, the title to which is in the United States Government until final proof, which is not made until after the fire, does not defeat a policy under such condition.21 Such a condition does not render invalid insurance upon the material in a building which is being torn down.22