After a land contract has been concluded and possession thereunder given to the purchaser upon whom does the loss to the real estate from fire or accident fall? Unquestionably upon the vendee.72 But does the same rule apply when an executory contract for the sale of real estate has been duly concluded, but possession not given? By the weight of authority it is held that the loss in such cases falls on the vendee, upon the principle that as soon as a binding contract has been entered into for the purchase of the property, the vendee is then entitled to any increase or depreciation in the value of such property and should therefore be held to any loss which may occur.

Of course, the parties may, by stipulation, agree that the vendor shall assume this risk, but in the absence of stipulation the rule is as above stated.

Since equity throws the burden of loss by fire on the vendee it naturally follows that the insurance money should go to the vendee and so the courts everywhere in America hold while, the vendor is usually entitled to collect the insurance money, he is regarded by equity as a trustee for the vendee.73

72. Pomeroy's Equity Jur. second edition, Sec. 2282.

Good v. Jarrard, 93 S. C. 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 383; Waite v. Stanley, 88 Vt. 407 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1916 C.

Sewell v. Underhill, 197 N. Y. 168, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 233, 134 Am. Sr. Rep. 863, 18 Ann. Cases 795; Fouts v. Foundray, 31 Okl. 221, Ann. Cas. 1913 E, 301, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 251; Brewer v. Herbert, 30 Md. 301, 96 Am. Dec. 582; Phinizy v. Guernsey, 111 Ga. 346, 78 Am. St. Rep. 207, 36 S. E. 796; Davidson v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 71 Iowa 532, 60 Am. Rep. 818, 32 N. W. 514; Goldman v. Rosenberg, 116 N. Y. 78, 15 Am. St. Rep. 410, 22 N. E. 397 (Court here acknowledged gen eral rule that loss should fall on vendee, but said it did not apply to the case by the terms of the contract); Skinner & Sons v. Houghton, 92 Md. St. Rep. 485, 48 Atl. 85; Copper v. Brown, 76 N. J. Eq. 406, 139, Am. St. Rep. 770, 74 Atl. 987 (purchase at judicial sale); Good v. Jarrard, 93 S. C. 229, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 383, 76 S. E. 698. Where the state of the title is such at the time of the loss that specific performance could not then be enforced; Wells v. Calnan, 107 Mass. 514, 9 Am. Rep. 65 (Action at law by vendor); Gould v. Murch, 70 Me. 288, 289, 35 Am. Rep. 325; Powell v. Dayton, etc., R. R., 12 Or. 488, 8 Pac. 544, 14 Or. 356, 12 Pac. 665, 16 Or. 33, 8 Am. St. Rep. 251, 16 Pac. 863.

73. Marion v. Wolcott, 68 New Jersey Eq. 20. Plaintiff contracted to sell a certain house and lot to the defendant. Before the purchase price was paid the house was de-

If by reason of the happening of some unforeseen contingency the estate entirely fails the loss nevertheless falls on the vendee, for instance where the vendee purchased a life estate and the life dropped or where the agreement was for the purchase of an annuity for the vendee's life, and the vendee dies before the first payment is due.74 stroyed by fire and plaintiff brings this action to recover from the defendant, the vendee, the amount of the insurance which he had received for the loss.

The court held that under a contract for sale of lands purchaser becomes equitable owner and takes benefits and must also stand losses which accrue. This insurance was to protect defendant's interest and he is entitled to same.

Kimberlin v. Templeton, 55 Ind. App. 155, 102 N. E. 160. The court stated the general rule in contracts for the sale of real estate where loss occurs, to be as follows: In a contract for the sale of real estate the vendee becomes the equitable owner; the vendee secures all benefits and assumes all risks of ownership.

Manning v. North British Ins. Co.. 123 Mo. App. 456-99 S. W. 1095. Plaintiff had entered into a contract to sell a third party certain real property; before property was paid for and before vendee went into possession the house thereon was destroyed by fire. The insurance policy contained the provision that change of ownership would avoid the policy. Question was whether there had been a change of ownership or not. The court held: A valid contract of sale of real estate puts equitable title in vendee even though he is not in possession. Any damage to property under such circumstances falls on vendee. Hence there was such a change of ownership as to avoid the policy.

Sewell v. Underhill, 197 N. Y. 168, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 233. The defendant contracted to sell certain real property to the plaintiff. Before completion of payment therefor, but after part payment had been made and plaintiff had entered into possession the house on the property was burned. Plaintiff now seeks to recover the value of the house.

Court held: Where property is destroyed by fire without fault of either party before final papers are completed, but after contract has been executed, the loss falls on the vendee.

74. Fouts v. Foudray, 31 Okl. 221 -38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 251. Plaintiff sold defendant certain property. Deed placed in escrow to be delivered on payment of a promissory note executed by the defendant. The house was destroyed by fire and defendant refused to pay the note, claiming that the consideration had been destroyed. Held: Equitable title passed immediately on execution of contract to the vendee. Where buildings are destroyed by fire between date of contract of sale and execution of deed and delivery thereof the loss must be borne by the vendee.

Marks v. Tichenor, 85 Ky. 536-4 S. W. 225. Plaintiff sold certain