VENDOR AND VENDEE   49

Rayner v. Preston has given some dissatisfaction. In some jurisdictions the courts have sought to follow the general and manifestly unsound reasoning of Lord Justice James in his dissenting opinion, to the effect that the policy is for the benefit of all persons interested in the property. Professor Vance, in the note in the Vale Law Journal (see footnote), suggests that in the business world the insurance runs with the land, and that the courts should give effect to that understanding. Other jurisdictions have sought so to extend the rule that the vendee becomes the beneficial owner of the land for certain purposes (Sewell v. Underhill, supra) as to include the insurance money. In Millville Aerie No. 1836. Fraternal Order of Eagles v. Weatherby (1913) 82 N. J. Eq. 455, 88 A. 847, the court says:

"as purchaser under a valid contract of purchase vendee became the equitable owner of the property, in equity the property is regarded as belonging to him; the vendor retaining the legal title simply as trustee and as security for the unpaid purchase money. By reason of this equitable relation of the parties to a contract of sale of land, it has been determined by the great weight of American authority that money accruing on a policy of insurance, where the loss has occurred subsequent to the execution of the contract, will. in equity. inure to the benefit of the vendee; the vendor still retaining his character as trustee, and the insurance money iii his hands representing the property that has been destroyed."

These reasons may savor of layman's ideas of equity, but they are not law. The majority of the court in Rayner v. Preston were sound in principle. Insurance is a mere personal contract to pay a sum of money by way of indemnity to protect the interest of the insured. Cromwell v. Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co., 44 N. V. 12, 47, 4 Am. Ilep. 641; Pity of Norwich. 118 U. S. 468. 301. 303, 6 S. Ct. 11:0, 30 L. Ed. 134. In common parlance the buildings are insured ; but every one who stops to consider the nature of the insurance contract understands that they are not. Both in the forum and the market place it is known that the insurance runs to the individual insured, and not with the land. The vendor has a beneficial interest to protect, i. e.. his own. The vendee has an insurable interest and may protect himself. The trustee as such has no insurable interest, and can only act for the cestui que trust. Plaintiff may not have the insurance money collected by defendant. It is not a part of the res bargained for, and no trust relation exists in regard to it.

Plaintiff asks that, if the relief he seeks cannot be granted, the rights of the parties be stated. In this regard the parties have by the terms of their contract taken themselves out of the old rule of Paine v. Meller, 6 Ves. Jr. 349, adopted in Sewell v. Underhill, supra, which places the loss on the vendee when the buildings are