CHAPTER IV

RIGHTS AND POWERS OF THE INSURED

Section 1.-Where There Is One Policy and One Interest.

POWER OF ASSIGNMENT. A provision prohibiting an assignment of a policy be-fore a loss, is valid, but one prohibiting an assignment after loss is inefficacious. Ginsburg v. Bull Dog Auto Fire Ins. Assn. (1928) 328 Ill. 571, 160 N. E. 145, 56 A. L. R. 1387. Allen v. Phoenix Assur. Co. (1907) 12 Idaho 653, 88 Pac. 245, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 903, 10 Ann. Cas. 328, Comment (1907) 5 Mich. L. Rev. 482; Comment (1925) 38 Harv. L. Rev. 116; Note (1925) 38 Harv. L. Rev. 99; Parker, C. G., The Nature of a Policy of Insurance With Respect to Its Assignability (1888) 1 Harv. L. Rev. 388. See also the cases cited in Note 56 A. L. R. 1391.

ANTICIPATORY REPUDIATION. The insured may sue before the expiration of the 60-day immunity period where the insurer has repudiated the policy. Scott v. Life &c. Ins. Co. (1925) 34 Ga. App. 479, 129 S. E. 903, Comment (1926) 26 Colum. L. Rev. 230.

INSURED'S POWER OF CANCELLATION. Where the policy permits the insured to cancel his insurance, he may do so by sending the policy to the company. In such a contingency he has a right to the return of unearned premiums, Comments (1910) 19 Yale L. J. 386, (1918) 18 Colum. L. Rev. 88. The cancellation is not effective until the policy is received by the company, consequently a loss occurring while the policy is in the mails is covered. Hutchins v. United States Automobile Ins. Exch. (1927) 170 Minn. 273, 212 N. W. 451; Crown Point Iron Co. v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1891) 127 N. Y. 608, 28 N. E. 653, 14 L. R. A. 147.

RIGHT TO RETURN OF PREMIUMS WHERE TIIE POLICY IS VOIDABLE FOR INSURED'S BREACH OF WARRANTY. See O'Connor Transp. Co. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co. (1922) 204 App. Div. 56, 197 N. Y. S. 549, which discusses the different views.

DESCENT. Insurance upon real property is a chose in action and upon the death of the insured, passes to the insured's personal representative, who may recover upon the policy for a loss subsequent to the insured's death. The proceeds are subject to debts just as other personal property. Oldhams Trustee v. Boston Ins. Co. (1920) 189 Ky. 844, 226 S. W. 706, 16 A. L. R.. 305, Comment (1921) 21 Colum. L. Rev. 491; Home Ins. Co. v. Latimer (1928) 33 Ariz. 288, 264 Pac. 103.

EXPIRATION OF INSURANCE PERIOD. A fire was raging near the insured building as the policy expired at noon on April 1, 1902, and subsequently destroyed it. Held: The building was not covered. Rochester German Ins. Co. v. Peaslee-Gaulbert Co. (1905) 120 Ky. 752, 87 S. W. 1115, 89 S. W. 3, 9 Ann. Cas. 324, Comment (1906) 19 Harv. L. Rev. 217.

Section 2.-Where There Is One Policy and Two Interests (and Herein Subrogation).

(a) VENDOR AND VENDEE.

RAVNER v. PRESTON.
Court of Appeal, 1881. L. R. 18 Ch. Div. 1.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Master of the Rolls dismissing the action. The Plaintiffs purchased from the Defend-

T34