746   RIGHTS OF INSURED

on June 2, 1919, a contract in writing was entered into between Brady and Welsh for the purchase by the former of a farm of 160 acres in Buchanan county. Settlement under the contract was had, and possession given on March 1, 1920. On June 19, 1919, Brady entered into a separate contract with intervener, agreeing to convey the property to him, which contract was also to be consummated March 1, 1920. On or about November 15, 1919, the dwelling house was totally destroyed by fire. At the time the contract was entered into, the building was insured in the name of appellee in the Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Black Hawk county. On January 20, 1929, $1,000 was paid on this policy to appellee, which he still retains. Brady, on March 1, 1920, paid appellee the purchase price agreed upon for the farm in full, and this action is to recover the insurance paid.

The conflicting theories of respective counsel are each supported by authority; appellee contending that the theory advanced by him has already been adopted by this court. He contends, and such appears to have been the view of the trial court, that the contract of insurance was a mere personal contract between the insurer and the insured for his own benefit, and that upon no theory has appellant any interest therein, and that thereafter the proceeds of the policy belong exclusively to him; whereas it is the view of counsel for appellant that, as the equitable title to the premises upon the execution of the contract passed immediately to the purchaser, the legal title being retained by appellee merely as security for the payment of the purchase price, the loss of the building fell upon appellant, and that, having paid the full purchase price, appellee holds the proceeds of the insurance as trustee only, and that he is now entitled to recover the same in this action.

It is the rule in England, and in a few jurisdictions in this country, that a contract of insurance, being one of indemnity, is personal between the insurer and the insured, and that the amount paid for a loss thereunder belongs solely to the vendor, and that the vendee has no interest therein. * * * The great weight of authority in this country, however, favors the view for which appellant contends. * * * [Many cases were here cited.]

There can be no question under all of the authorities but that both the vendor and vendee in a contract of sale, by the terms of which the equitable title passes to the vendee, have an insurable interest in the property. Depreciation in the value thereof, whether by reason of fire which consumes the buildings or by other causes, must be borne by the vendee; likewise any appreciation in value of the property belongs to him. The only loss suffered by appellee herein was such depreciation in his security as resulted from the destruction of the building by fire. He has been paid the full purchase price of the farm, and, if permitted to retain the money received by him as insurance, he will profit to that extent. The