744   RIGHTS OF INSURED

trine of subrogation to the principle that the insurers are entitled to enforce all remedies, whether in contract or in tort. I should venture to add this—"and if the assured enforces or receives the advantage of such remedies, the insurers are entitled to receive from the assured the advantage of such remedies." Then when we come to this illustration, "Where the landlord insures, and he has a covenant by the tenant to repair, the insurance office, on payment in like manner, succeeds to the right of the landlord against his tenant:" I would add this—"and if the tenant does repair, the insurer has the right to receive from the assured a benefit equivalent to the benefit which the assured has received from such repair." * * * Darrell v. Tibbitts, 5 Q. B. D. 560, seems to me to be entirely in favour of the plaintiff in this case. I shall not retract from the very terns which I used in that case. It seems to me that in Darrell v. Tibbitts, the insurers were not subrogated to a right of action or to a remedy. They were not subrogated to a right to enforce the remedy, but what they were subrogated into was the right to receive the advantage of the remedy which had been applied, whether it had been enforced or voluntarily administered by the person who was bound to ad-minister it. That seems to me to be the doctrine. Then with regard to the passage, 5 Q. B. D. at p. 563. "The doctrine is well established that where something is insured against loss, either in a marine or a fire policy, after the assured has been paid by the insurers for the loss, the insurers are put into the place of the assured with regard to every right given to him by the law respecting the subject-matter insured." I wish to explain that that was a distinct clause, and it was so intended by me when I stated it. I then mentioned contracts: "And with regard to every con-tract which touches the subject-matter insured, and which contract is affected by the loss or the safety of the subject-matter insured by reason of the peril insured against." I fail to conceive any contract which gives a right over the thing insured, which is not affected by the loss or safety of it, and if it is necessary to bring the present case within those terms, it seems to me that the con-tract of purchase and sale was affected by that loss. I will not go further with the judgment of Chitty, ,T., except to say this, that at the end my learned Brother has put it thus, that "the only principle applicable is that of subrogation as understood in the full sense of that term." 8 Q. B. D. at p. 625. There I agree with him, only my view of the full sense is larger than that which he adopted. "And that where the right claimed is under a contract between the insured and third parties, it must be confined to the case of a contract relating to the subject-matter of the insurance which entitled the insurers to have the damages made good." I think it would be better expressed in this way—"which entitles the assured to be put by such third parties into as good a position