A SURETY   727

of the house; and there is no showing of any necessity to resort to this property for indemnity in case of default by the principal. Neither when the policy was written nor when the fire occurred had Loyd expended one cent by reason of his suretyship, nor at any time since, as the bond was paid by Kinsworthy, the other surety. Loyd never had any lien upon the property, in law or equity, nor any control or custody of it as security for his liability. In. stances where sureties, guarantors, and indorsers have an insurable interest in the subject-matter for which their suretyship, guaranty, or indorsement was given may be found in 1 May on Ins. Secs. 80-83, and notes. The facts herein do not bring Loyd within any of the principles which give sureties an insurable interest in the subject-matter for which the suretyship was insured.

2. Proof was made that a child was born alive of the marriage of Dr. and Mrs. Loyd, and it is argued that this created in him an estate by the curtesy initiate in his wife's realty. At common law, and in this state until the adoption of the Constitution of 1874, this would have created such estate in the husband, and such estate is an insurable interest. 1 May on Ins. Sec. 81, and authorities cited. It was held in Neely v. Lancaster, 47 Ark. 175, 1 S. W. 66, 58 Am. Rep. 752, and reiterated in Hampton v. Cook, 64 Ark. 353, 42 S. WI. 535, 62 Am. St. Rep. 194, that the Constitution has abolished this estate, and only left the possibility of the estate by the curtesy consummate.

Other questions were pressed in oral argument, but they are not open to the court now having been settled in former appeals.

Judgment affirmed.72

12 But would not Kinsworthy have a right to contribution against Lloyd, and if exercised would not this give Lloyd a right by subrogation against the maker of the note, and therefore a right to the lien of the payee against the maker! Would not the liability of being placed in such a position with respect to the property give Lloyd an insurable interest in it?

Compare the principal case with the holding that a mortgagee continues to have an insurable interest in the mortgaged property after an assignment of the mortgage and note where he guaranties the payment of the note. Mahony v. State Ins. Co. (1907) 133 Iowa 570, 110 N. W. 1041, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 490 (an-notated); Key ex rel. v. Continental Ins. Co. (1903) 101 Mo. App. 344, 74 S. W. 162.

Compare also with the holding that a mortgagor after the sale of the mortgaged premises continues to have an insurable interest in the premises because of his secondary liability for the mortgage debt. Waring v. Loder (1873) 53 N. Y. 581; Pike v. American Alliance Ins. Co. (1924) 158 Ga. 686, 124 S. E. 161, Comment (1925) 34 Yale L. J. 444.