PURCHASER OF STOLEN PROPERTY   731

the contractors, get double compensation, unless they should be adjudged to hold the fund recovered for the contractors. But, how-ever this may be, the owners had an insurable interest to the whole value of the buildings on their land; and the defendants neither can compel the plaintiffs to put the loss on the contractors, nor can they resort to the terms of the building contract to diminish the liability for an actual loss within the terms of the policy.

The fact that improvements on land may have cost the owner nothing, or that, if destroyed by fire, he may compel another person to replace them without expense to him or that he may recoup his loss by resort to a contract liability of a third person, in no way affects the liability of an insurer, in the absence of any exemption in the policy. * * *

The judgment should be affirmed. All concur, except MARTIN and 'ANN, JJ., not sitting. Judgment affirmed.

Section 8.-Bona Fide Purchaser of Stolen Property. BARNETT v. LONDON ASSUR. CORP.

Supreme Court of Washington, 1926.
138 Wash. 673, 245 Pac. 3, 46 A. L. R. 526.

Action by Joseph Barnett against the London Assurance Corpora. tion. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

MAIN, J. This action was brought upon an insurance policy to recover for loss sustained by reason of the theft of an automobile. The cause was tried to the court without a jury, and resulted in findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment sustaining a recovery in the sum of $450. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

On February 10, 1923, the respondent in the city of Chicago purchased a Ford touring car, and paid therefor the sum of $450. Thereafter he added accessories to the extent of something over $100. The car was used by the respondent at the place where it was purchased in connection with his business there until May 8th following. Subsequent to the latter date the automobile was driven by the respondent from Chicago to Seattle, where he arrived on May 22d. The car was then used in the city of Seattle until August 22d, when it was stolen. On July 12, 1923, and prior to the date of the theft, the appellant had issued to the respondent an insurance policy covering the automobile against theft. After the car was stolen, the respondent reported this fact to the appellant. Upon receipt of this information the appellant made a search for it, and in the course of such search discovered a Ford automobile bearing the same number in the state of Mississippi. That automo.