724   INSURABLE INTEREST

agreement between them, Craig assigned any interest he might have under the policy of insurance to plaintiff, and this action was brought, resulting in a recovery in the circuit court. Defendant brings the case here.

FELLOws, J. It is insisted on behalf of defendant that the policy is not enforceable, because: (1) At the time the policy was issued Craig was not the unconditional and sole owner of the property; (2) that he did not have an insurable interest. * * *

[The court held that the company was estopped to forfeit the policy because Craig was not the unconditional and sole owner.]

It was pressed upon the court at the argument with vigor that Craig did not have an insurable interest in the property, and for this reason plaintiff must fail in his right of recovery, and the question is fully discussed in the briefs tiled. This presents the meritorious question in the case. Policies of insurance founded upon mere hope and expectation and without some interest in the property. or the life insured, are objectionable as a species of gambling, and so have been called wagering policies. All species of gambling policies were expressly prohibited in England by St. 19 Geo. II, c. 37, and have been treated as illegal in this country upon the principles of that statute, without acknowledging it as authority. Here, such contracts of insurance are treated as contravening public policy, and are therefore void. If this policy falls within this class, it is void, and prevents plaintiff's recovery. If it does not, this judgment must be affirmed.

The argument of the defendant is that the assured must have title to the property, either legal or equitable, or a lien thereon, in order to have an insurable interest in the property such as is contemplated by the law ; that in the instant case Craig's interest was but that of an optionee. and therefore not insurable. In this defend-ant is in error. An insurable interest does not, of necessity, depend upon ownership of the property. It may be a special interest entirely disconnected from any title, lien, or possession. If the holder of an interest in property will suffer direct pecuniary loss, by its destruction, he may indemnify himself therefrom by a contract of insurance. The question is not what is his title to the property, but rather, would he be damaged pecuniarily by its loss. If he would, he has an insurable interest. That interest may be derived by possession, enjoyment, or profits of the property, security or lien resting upon it, or it may be other certain benefits growing out of or dependent upon it. It was said by Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in Harrison v. Fortlage, 161 U. S. 57, 16 Sup. Ct. 488, 40 L. Ed. 616:

"It is well settled that any person has an insurable interest in property, by the existence of which he will gain an advantage, or by the destruction of which he will suffer a loss, whether he has or