VENDOR AND VENDEE   747

rule that the vendor who receives insurance money paid to him in settlement of the loss of a building by fire, upon premises sold by him under an executory contract to convey after full payment of the purchase price, holds and retains the same as trustee for the vendee, is a wholesale one, and tends to effect justice between the parties. * * *

The order of the court below, dismissing the petition of intervention, is accordingly reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions that judgment be entered in his favor in harmony with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.'

FAVILLE, C. J., and DE GRAFF and VERMILLION, JJ., concur.

BROWNIELL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
INSIDE TAX DISTRICT.

Court of Appeals of New York, 1925.
239 N. Y. 369, 146 N. E. 630, 37 A. L. R. 1319.

Action by Frank Brownell against the Board of Education of the Inside Tax District of the City of Saratoga Springs. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirming a judgment of Special Term for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Re-versed, and declaratory judgment granted in accordance with opinion.

POUND, J. The parties seek a declaratory judgment under Civil Practice Act, § 473. Prior to September 10, 1923, the defendant board of education owned and was in possession of premises on Lake avenue in the city of Saratoga Springs on which were situate a high school building and two other small structures of comparatively little value. The building had become unsuitable or inadequate for use as a high school, and before the date specified defendant had purchased other property, and was erecting thereon a new high school building. On September 10, 1923, plaintiff and defendant entered into a written contract, whereby plaintiff agreed to purchase and defendant to sell the Lake avenue premises for $30,000, of which $3,000 was paid upon the execution of the con-tract. The balance was to be paid upon the completion of the new

2 See the comment on this case (1925) 35 Yale L. J. 240, and the Note (1925) 11 Iowa L. Rev. 73.

Accord: Russell v. Elliott (1922) 45 S. Dak. 184, 186 N. W. 824, 22 A. L. R. 556, Comment (1922) 6 Minn. L. Rev. 607; Skinner & Sons Ship-Bldg. &c. Co. v. Houghton (1900) 92 Md. 68, 48 Atl. 85, 84 Am. St. 485, Note (1901) 1 Colum. L. Rev. 313, Comment (1901) 15 Harv. L. Rev. 160; Godfrey v. Alcorn (1926) 215 Ky. 465, 284 S. W. 1094, 51 A. L. R. 925. See also the Notes 40 A. L. R. 607, 37 A. L. R. 1324, 51 A. L. R. 929.