(I) Shaw v. Foster, L. R. 5 H. L. 321, 338;Lysaght v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D. 499, 506; Rayner v. Preston, 18 Ch. D. 1, 6; Me Stucley, 1906, 1 Ch. 67, 78.

(m Acland v. Gaisford, 2 Madd. 28, 32; Phillips v. Silvester, L. It. 8 Ch. 173, 176 - 178. It should be noted that the vendor's equitable lien on the land sold for unpaid purchase moneycontinues after he has let the purchaser into possession or exe-cuted a conveyance to him, without receiving payment of the whole or part of the price; see below, Chap. XVIII. Sec. 1.

(n) Above, pp. 26, 46, 50.

(o) Above, p. 50.

(p) Above, p. 505, and notes (e), (f). (g).

(q) Paine v. Meller, 6 Ves. 349, 352; Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265, 274; Broome v. Monck, 10 Ves. 597, 614, 620, 621.

(r) Paine v. Meller, 6 Ves. 349, 352; Raynerv. Preston, 18 Ch.D.l. This is undoubtedly so in the case of .in absolute sale; but if persons tract on such terms that the continued existence of the object of the contract is a condition precedent to the performance of the agreement, they are discharged from their respective obligations by the destruction of the object without their fault: Taylor v. Caldwell, 3 B. & S. 826; and see Counter v. Macpherson, 5 Moore, P. C. 83, 104, 105; below, Chap. XVIII. Sec. 1.

(a) Sug.V. & P. 291,293,294; Jessel, M. R., Lysaght v. Edls, 2 Ch. D. 499, 507. The case is parallel to that of the absolute destruction before delivery and payment of the price of a particular chattel so sold as to pass the property to the purchaser: see Taylor v. Caldwell , 3 B. & 8. 826, 833, 837.

(t) Poole v. Shergold, 1 Cox,

(u) Above, p. 505.

(x) Above, p. 4 1 .

(y) Paine v. Meller, 6 Ves. 349, 352.

In connection with the destruction of a house sold by fire occurring before the completion of the contract, it should be mentioned that, where the house has been insured by the vendor, the benefit of the policy of insurance will not pass to the purchaser under the contract for sale of the house, unless expressly assigned to him; for the policy of insurance was altogether a collateral contract (c). And it should be especially noted that the benefit of a policy of insurance against fire is not, as a rule, assignable without the insurer's consent, for such policies usually take the form of a contract to indemnify the insured personally or his representatives in law, but not his assigns otherwise than by will (d). A vendor of land should, therefore, be very careful neither to assign to the purchaser the benefit of any existing contract of insurance against fire of any building thereon, nor to agree to hold any such policy on trust for the purchaser, except subject to the consent of the insuring office (e). For if the vendor make such an assignment or agreement without the consent of the office, and pending completion the house be burnt down, and he receive the insurance money and hand it over to the purchaser, or lay it out in rebuilding at the purchaser's request, he will be liable on receiving the full purchase money at the completion of the sale, to refund to the insurance office the amount paid by them (f); but it does not appear that he will have any cause of action to recover anything from the purchaser. And if the vendor, without having entered into any agreement with the purchaser, apply the money received under a policy of insurance against fire of a house burnt down pending completion in rebuilding or reinstating the house, it does not appear that he will be entitled to claim any increase of the purchase money on that account (g), and he will be equally liable to repay the amount of the insurance money to the insuring office on receiving the full price of the property sold (h). By a provision of the old Metropolitan Building Act, still remaining unrepealed, insurance offices are required, at the instance of any person interested in or entitled unto any houses or buildings damaged by fire, to cause the insurance money to be laid out in rebuilding or reinstating the same, unless within sixty days after the claim is adjusted the parties claiming the insurance money give security that the same shall be so laid out, or the money be disposed of among the contending parties to the satisfaction of the office (i). It has been held that the operation of this provision is general, and is not confined to houses or buildings within the limits of the metropolis (k;), but the' correctness of this decision has been questioned in the House of Lords (/). It seems very doubtful whether this enactment enables any person who has an interest in the building damaged, but has no independent claim to have the insurance money applied in reinstatement, to require the office to lay out the insurance money in rebuilding. Thus, where a lessee under covenant with his lessor to insure in their joint names to three-fourths of the value of the premises and to apply the insurance money in reinstatement, effected such insurance, but subsequently improved the premises and effected a further insurance in his own name, it was held that the money payable under such further insurance must be laid out at the lessor's request in reinstating the property (m). But it has been doubted by Lord Selborne in the House of Lords whether this enactment gives a mortgagor or subsequent incumbrancer any claim to require the money paid under an insurance made by a mortgagee to be applied in reinstatement (n), and the doubt apparently extends to question the claim of a mortgagee to require reinstatement, where the insurance was effected by the mortgagor before the mortgage, and the mortgagor has not expressly agreed to apply the insurance money in reinstatement (o). If this doubt be well founded, it does not appear that where a house sold has been insured by the vendor and burnt down pending completion of the contract, the purchaser can under the above-mentioned enactment require the insurance money to be laid out in rebuilding, unless the vendor has expressly agreed to give him the benefit of the insurance or to lay out the money in reinstatement (p). It follows that where the property sold comprises valuable buildings, the purchaser should himself insure against fire as from the date of the contract for sale, unless it be arranged with the consent of the office that he shall have the benefit of the existing insurance.