710   INSIRABLE INTEREST

occasions made payments to plaintiffs on the moneys which had been advanced.

The plaintiffs were not mortgagees. They were not called so in the loss payable clause. There was no mortgagee clause in the policy. The only interest they had through this policy, or in the property that it covered, was under the appointment or assignment of the policy in the "loss payable" clause, to the extent to which the assured might be indebted to them at the time of the collection of the loss. The actual interest which plaintiffs had is described by their witness Richard Irving:

"Now those invoices were made, either in view of actual orders that we had on hand or anticipated orders, or sometimes even when we were confident of a market by the time we could manu• facture the goods, we would make out the pro forma invoices for the reasonable amount of goods that we guessed we could make and sell, so that the goods represented by the invoices were some-times finished, sometimes in process, sometimes raw material to be made up."

We find that this proof shows a lack of insurable interest, and that therefore the judgment should be reversed, with costs, and judgment directed for the defendant, with costs.

Order filed. All concur.'

DONALDSON v. SL-N M T. INS. CO.
Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1895. 95 Tenn. 280, 32 S. W. 251.

MCALISTER, J. This is a suit. upon a policy of fire insurance. The Chancellor pronounced a decree in favor of complainant for the full amount of the policy. The company appealed, and has as-signed errors. The policy, upon its face, insured the Kimball Town Company, as the owner of a certain hotel building, in a sum not exceeding fifteen hundred dollars, but the loss was made payable to W. E. Donaldson, receiver for the New York & New Orleans Coal & Iron Company, as his interest may appear at that time. The original bill is filed in the name of Donaldson, as receiver, against the insurance company, as defendant. It alleges, among other things, that "at the time said policy was issued, and at the time of

7 But since the "appointee" did not effect the policy should an insurable interest be required? Is this not analogous to a life insurance ease in which the insured effects a policy for the benefit of a third person? In such a case, since the insured himself is the moving party in procuring the insurance no insurable interest is necessary.

Is not the naming of a creditor as "appointee" to receive the insurance proceeds substantially the equivalent of making an assignment of the policy as security for a debt? If so, of course the clause prohibiting assignment would not invalidate the policy because the company by issuing the policy containing the "appointee" clause would waive its power of avoidance.