740   RIGHTS OF INSURED

entitled, and the purchaser left the matter in his hands. Now the purchaser could at that time have applied to the office to compel the money to be laid out in restoring the building. And I am of opinion that when the money was under these circumstances obtained from the office, it reached the vendor's hands according to the then rights of the parties as between them and the insurance office, that is to say, as money which ought to be laid out in reinstating the premises, or, in other words, as money which the purchaser alone had any real or substantial interest in.

BRETT, L. J.: I should like to add to what I have said that I feel very great doubt whether as between the Defendants and the insurance company the Defendants can keep the money.

COTTON, L. J.: I quite concur in that doubt. CASTELLAIN v. PRESTON.

Court of Appeal, 1883. L. R. 11 Q. B. D. 380.

Appeal of the plaintiff from the judgment of Chitty, J., in favour of the defendants.

The plaintiff sued on behalf of the London, Liverpool, and Globe Insurance Company to recover a sum of £330 with interest since the 25th of September, 1878. On the 25th of March, 1878, the de. fendants, as owners of certain lands and buildings in Liverpool, effected an insurance on the buildings against loss by fire, and they kept the policy on foot by payment of the premiums until after the fire hereinafter mentioned occurred. The policy was in the usual form, giving the insurers the option of reinstating the property. On the 31st of July, 1878, the defendants contracted to sell the land and the buildings to their tenants, Messrs. Rayner, for the sum of £3100, and they received a deposit. The contract provided that the time of the completion should be such day within two years from the date as the vendors should name. ()n the 15th of August in the same year a fire occurred damaging part of the buildings. A claim was made on behalf of the defendants, and after negotiation as to the sum to be paid, the amount of the claim was ultimately fixed at £330, and that sum was in fact paid on the 2:5th of September, 1878, by the insurers, who were at that time ignorant of the existence of the contract for sale. On the 25th of March, 1879, the defendants named the 5th of May as the day of completion, and on the following 12th of December the conveyance was executed and the balance of the purchase-money paid. * *

BRETT, L. J. In this case the action is brought by the plaintiff as representing an insurance company against the defendants in respect of money which has been paid by that company to the