136   RIGHTS OF INSURED

and the insurance office, to which they were the sole parties. It is true that under certain circumstances a policy of insurance may, in Equity, be assigned, so as to give another person a right to sue upon it; but in this case the policy of insurance, as a contract, never was assigned by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs. It would have been assigned by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs if it had been included in the contract of purchase, but it was not. Any valuation of the policy, any consideration of increase of the price of the premises in consequence of there being a policy, was wholly omitted. There was nothing given by the Plaintiffs to the Defend-ants for the contract. The contract, therefore, neither expressly nor impliedly, was assigned to the Plaintiffs; and, so far as regards the contract of insurance, there never was any relation of any kind between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants.

But there did exist a relation between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, not with regard to the subject-matter of the contract, but with regard to the subject-matter of the insurance. There was a contract of purchase and sale between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in respect of the premises insured. It becomes necessary to consider accurately, as it seems to me, and to state in accurate terns, what is the relation between the two people who have contracted together with regard to premises in a contract of sale and purchase. With the greatest deference, it seems wrong to say that the one is a trustee for the other. The contract is one which a Court of Equity will enforce by means of a decree for specific performance. But if the vendor were a trustee of the property for the vendee, it would seem to me to follow that all the product, all the value of the property received by the vendor from the time of the making of the contract ought. under all circumstances, to belong to the vendee. What is the relation between them, and what is the result of the contract? Whether there shall ever be a conveyance depends on two conditions ; first of all, whether the title is made out, and, secondly, whether the money is ready; and unless those two things coincide at the time when the contract ought to be completed, then the contract never will be completed and the property never will be conveyed. But suppose at the time when the contract should be completed. the title should be made out and the money is ready. then the conveyance takes place. Now it has been suggested that when that takes place, or when a Court of Equity decrees specific performance of the contract, and the conveyance is made in pursuance of that decree, then by relation back the vendor has been trustee for the vendee from the time of the making of the con-tract. But, again, with deference, it appears to me that if that were so, then the vendor would in all cases be trustee for the vendee of all the rents which have accrued due and which have been received by the vendor between the time of the making of the contract and the time of completion; but it seems to me that that is not the law.