VENDOR AND VENDEE   745

as if the damage insured against had not happened." If it is put in that sense, it seems to me to be consistent with the proposition which I laid down at the beginning of what I have said, and to cover this case. I will repeat it, "which entitles the assured to be put by such third parties into as good a position as if the damage insured against had not happened." The contract in the present case, as it seems to me, does enable the assured to be put by the third party into as good a position as if the fire had not happened and that result arises from this contract alone. Therefore, ac-cording to the true principles of insurance law, and in order to carry out the fundamental doctrine, namely, that the assured can recover a full indemnity, but shall never recover more, except, perhaps, in the case of the suing and labouring clause under certain circumstances, it is necessary that the plaintiff in this case should succeed. The case of Darrell v. Tibbitts, 5 Q. B. D. 560, has cut away every technicality which would prevent a sound decision. The doctrine of subrogation must be carried out to the full extent, and carried out in this case by enabling the plaintiff to recover.' * * *

Judgment reversed.

BRADY v. WELSH.
Supreme ('ourt of Iowa. 1925.
200 Iowa 44, 204 N. W. 235, 40 A. L. R. 603.

Action in equity by the vendee, to recover insurance money paid to the vendor for the loss of buildings upon the premises sold before final completion of the transfer. Decree for the defendant. Welsh, and against the plaintiff and. intervener. The latter, as grantee of plaintiff, alone appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

STEVENS, .T. This is an action by the grantee against the vendor, to recover a sum paid to hint as insurance for the loss of a dwelling house by fire, upon premises sold on contract between the dote thereof and its final consummation. The case was tried in equity upon an agreed statement of facts.

Before the time for the completion of the sale by the execution of a deed, the plaintiff, by contract in writing, agreed to convey the farm to J. T. Walton, who has intervened herein, claiming the benetit of the insurance. It appears from the stipulated facts that

I Compare: Mahan v. Home Ins. Co. (1920) 204 Mo. App. 592, 226 S. W. 593, Comment (1921) 21 Colum. L. Rev. 601, where it was held that since the risk of loss passed to the vendee by the contract and the vendor's claim to the purchase price was unaffected by the partial destruction of the subject-matter of the con-tract, the vendor could not recover from the insurance company. That is, the vendor failed to show a loss.