AN OPTIONEE   725

has not any title in, or lien upon, or possession of the property itself."

This case involved a consignment of sugar where, by the terms of the contract, the property did not pass to the buyer until it left the ship's tackle. The case of Getchell v. Mercantile & Mfg.'s Fire Ins. Co., 109 Me. 274, S3 Atl. 801, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 135, Ann. Cas. 19131E 7:38, involved the question of whether a tenant had an insurable interest in the property. It is an interesting case, and quite fully considers the authorities on the subject. Speaking for the court it was said by Mr. Justice Cornish:

"The crucial question therefore is, Will the insured be directly and financially affected by the loss of the property insured? If so, he has such an interest as the law will recognize. The loss must not be indirect or sentimental, but direct and actual. It is not nec• essarily an interest in the property in the sense of title, but a concern in the preservation of the property and such a relation to or connection with it as will necessarily entail a pecuniary loss in case of its injury or destruction. This opens a wide field, and the decisions take an extensive range with a growing tendency to expand rather than to contract the scope of the term." * * *

The unrippled current of authority is to the effect that title to, or lien upon property, is not essential to an insurable interest. Measured by the standard fixed in the cases quoted from, and cited, did Craig have an insurable interest in this property? He had an option upon this property, a right to buy it, an enforceable right, for which he paid over $2,500. Was that right of more value with the building standing than with the building destroyed? Would he suffer direct pecuniary loss in the value of his right by its destruction? Would he be damaged pecuniarily by the loss of the building? To ask these questions is to answer them. Obviously this contract of insurance was not a wagering, gambling contract prohibited by public policy, but was valid and enforceable.

The judgment is affirmed."

11 One who is in possession of land under a quit-claim deed, claiming to own the buildings thereon, but not owning the land, has an insurable interest in the buildings. American Cent. Ins. Co. v. Donlon (1901) 16 Colo. App. 416, 66 Pac. 249, Comment (1903) 15 Harv. L. Rev. 573. See also 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 429 and L. R. A. 1918A, 393.

A grantor of property in fraud of creditors has no insurable interest in the property. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. First Nat. Bank (1928) 129 Okla. 204, 264 Pac. 142. That the grantee under such circumstances is the "sole and unconditional owner," see National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Short (1929) 32 Fed. (2d) 631, 64 A. L. R. 753, reported ante p. 634.