Policies of fire insurance frequently contain provisions to the effect that change of title, ownership, and the like, shall operate as a termination of the liability of the insurer. Pull effect is given to such provisions;1 but wherever such provisions will operate as a forfeiture they are construed strictly in favor of the insured.2 Such a condition is not broken by filing a petition in voluntary bankruptcy,3 nor by appointing a receiver in bankruptcy if the receiver does not oust the insured of possession,4 nor by rendering judgment which becomes a lien upon the property insured,5 nor by levying an attachment thereon.6 Whether an executory contract of sale operates as a breach of such condition, is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority. In some jurisdictions it is held that an executory sale does not operate as a forfeiture under such a condition,7 even if the deed has been placed in escrow to be delivered upon the performance of the specified conditions of the sale.8 In other jurisdictions an executory sale operates as a breach of such a condition.9 If an administrator has sold the property which is insured, and his sale has been confirmed, such condition is broken.10 A condition against change of title or possession is not broken by placing the insured property in the custody of a commission merchant.11 A condition against change in interest, title or possession in a mortgage protecting a mortgagee's interest, is not broken by his pledging the mortgage notes as collateral security.12

7 United States. Vanhorne v. Dor-rance, 2 U. S. (2 Dall.) 304, 1 L. ed. 301.

Iowa. Perrin v. Cathcart, 115 Ia. 653, 89 N. W. 12.

Kentucky. Walling v. Wainscott, 152 Ky. 365, 153 S. W. 453.

Minnesota. Yanish v. J. Neils Lumber Co., 101 Minn. 78, III N. W. 921.

New Mexico. Caledonia Coal Co. v. Young, 22 N. M. 675, 167 Pac. 274.

Ohio. Pfantz v. Humburg, 82 O. S. 1, 91 N. E. 863.

Pennsylvania. White v. Carnegie Steel Co, 255 Pa. St. 100, 99 Atl. 460.

Utah. William B. Hughes Produce Co. v. Pulley, 47 Utah, 544, L. R. A. 1916D, 728, 155 Pac. 337.

Wisconsin. Gimbel Bros. v. McCon-nell, 159 Wis. 325, 150 N. W. 495.

1 Kansas. Burns v. Alliance Cooperative Ins. Co., 103 Kan. 803, 176 Pac. 985.

Massachusetts. Swaine v. Teutonia Fire Ins. Co., 222 Mass. 108, 109 N. E. 825.

Hew Jersey. Grunauer v. Westchester F. Ins. Co., 72 N. J. L. 289, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 107, 62 Atl. 418.

Ohio. Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Waters, 65 O. S. 157, 61 N. E. 711.

South Dakota. Smith v. Retail Merchants' F. Ins. Co., 29 S. D. 332, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 173, 137 N. W. 47.

Tennessee. American Steam Laundry Co. v. Hamburg-Bremen F. Ins. Co., 121 Tenn. 13, 21 L. R. A. (N.S.) 442, 113 S. W. 394.

Washington. Moller v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 54 Wash. 439, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 807, 103 Pac. 449.

West Virginia. Bronson v. New York F. Ins. Co., 64 W. Va. 494, 19 L. R. A. (N.S.) 643, 63 S. E. 283.

2 Arkansas. Firemen's Ins. Co. v. Larey, 125 Ark. 93, L. R. A. 1917A, 29, 188 S. W. 7.

Illinois. Kelley v. People's National F. Ins. Co., 262 III. 158, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1164, 104 N. E. 188.

Kansas. Garner v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 73 Kan. 127, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 654, 84 Pac. 717; Pomeroy v. Aetna Ins. Co., 86 Kan. 214, 38 L. R. A. (N.S.) 142, 120 Pac. 344; Dab-ney v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 104 Kan. 796, 180 Pac. 784.

Louisiana. Gordon v. Mechanics' & T. Ins. Co., 120 La. 441, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 827, 45 So. 384.

Michigan. O'Toole v. Ohio German F. Ins. Co., 159 Mich. 187, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 802, 123 N. W. 795; Phillips ▼. Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co., - Mich. - , 175 N. W. 144.

Mississippi Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co. v. Boyce, 114 Miss. 165, L. R. A. 1917E, 328, 74 So. 821.

Pennsylvania. Marcello v. Concordia F. Ins. Co., 234 Pa. St. 31, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 366, 82 AtL 1090.

Conditions in fire insurance policies upon personal property, frequently provide for terminating the policy in case of the removal of the property.13 A promise to remove such property to a specified location, does not waive such condition if the property is temporarily in another building, although it is placed there as a part of the work of removing it to the designated location.14

Texas. Insurance Co. v. O'Bannon, Tex. -, 206 S. W. 814.

Wisconsin. Evans v. Crawford County Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co., 130 Wis. 189, 9 L. R. A. (N.S.) 486, 109 X. W. 952.

3 Gordon v. Mechanics' & T. Ins. Co., 120 La. 441, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 827, 45 So. 384.

4 Marcello v. Concordia F. Ins. Co., 234 Pa. St. 31, 39 L. R. A. (N.S.) 3C6, 82 Atl. 1090.

5 Kelley v. People's National F. Ins. Co., 262 III. 158, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1164, 104 N. E. 188.

6 O'Toole v. Ohio German F. Ins. Co., 159 Mich. 187, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 802, 123 N. W. 795.

7 Garner v. Milwaukee Mechanics' Ins. Co., 73 Kan. 127, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 654. 84 Pac. 717; Evans v. Crawford County Fanners' Mut. F. Ins. Co., 130 Wis. 139, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 485, 109 N. W. 952.

8 Pomeroy v. Aetna Ins. Co., 86 Kan. 214, 38 L. R. A. (N.S.) 142, 120 Pac. 344.

If the deed is not intended to pass title it is not a breach of condition, even though fraudulent. Phillips v. Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Co., - Mich. -, 175 N. W. 144.

9 Grunauer v. Westchester F. Ins. Co., 72 N. J. L. 289, 3 L. R. A. (N.S.) 107, 62 Atl. 418.

10 Moller v. Niagara F. Ins. Co., 54 Wash. 439, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 807, 103 Pac. 449.

11 Dabney v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co., 104 Kan. 796, 180 Pac. 784.

12 Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co. v. Boyce, 114 Miss. 165, L. R. A. 1917 E, 328, 74 So. 821.

13 Palatine Ins. Co. v. Kehoe, 197 Mass. 354, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1007, 83 N. E. 866.