732   INSURABLE INTEREST

bile was in possession of the rightful owner there who had purchased it, and was not the one upon which the appellant had issued the policy of insurance. The respondent's car which was covered by the insurance, was at no time found.

The appellant's first point is that the respondent had no title to the car described in the policy of insurance, and therefore had no right to recover thereon. This position is predicated upon the assumption that, by reason of the fact that there was a car in the state of Mississippi of the same make with a like number, therefore the respondent's car must have been a stolen car. It is not necessary here to determine what may be the probative effect of this evidence. The car covered by the policy upon which the action is based was purchased by the respondent in good faith, used by him, the insurance policy issued to him, and the premium paid. Even though the automobile may have been originally stolen from the rightful owner, the respondent had the title and the right to possession of it as against all the world, except the rightful owner, assuming that the car had been stolen from him. In Norris v. Alliance Ins. Co. (N. J. Sup.) 123 A. 762, it was held that, where the insured was the bona fide purchaser of an automobile on which the policy of insurance against theft was issued, his title was good against every one but the original owner, and that in an action upon the policy the insured had a right to recover for the theft of the car from him, even though originally it had been stolen from the rightful owner. It was there said:

"The defendant's difficulty is that there is no proof that the insured machine was stolen from its original owner, but, if this be granted, plaintiff's title was good against every one but the time owner, and he is unknown and makes no claim of ownership, and plaintiff has never been evicted. He owned it against all the world but a supposed owner, from whom we are asked to infer it was stolen. None but he can assert ownership against the plaintiff, which he does not do, and defendant has no right to do it for him. The plaintiff did not, knowingly, make any false representation to defendant as to his ownership; he supposed he was the unconditional and sole owner without any fact known to him to the contrary, and, so far as this record shows, was, and is, the only person claiming ownership. So far as defendant is concerned, it is the same as if the automobile had been lost and found by plaintiff, who is the true owner, until evicted by one holding better title. The possession of property is prima facie proof of title." * * *

The judgment will be affirmed.74

TOLmAN, C. J., and MITCHELL, PARKER, and MACKINTOSH, JJ.,

concur.

74 Contra: Hessen v. Iowa Automobile Milt. Ins. Co. (1922) 195 Iowa 141, 190 N. W. 150, 30 A. L. R. 657, Note (1923) 8 Iowa L. Bull. 181.

Kansas had a statute (repealed in 1927) requiring that one who buys an auto-