Hudson

(dissenting). I am unable to agree to the proposition that Miura, at the time of his final negotiations with the general agent of the defendant, had not authority to represent the insured. It is true that he had then ceased to be the president of the Rosedale Vineyard Company, but he remained a stockholder therein, and as such he had an insurable interest. Seaman v. Enterprise Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (C. C.) 21 F. 778 ; Warren v. Davenport F. Ins. Co., 31 Iowa, 464 , 7 Am. Rep. 160 ; Riggs v. Commercial Mut. Ins. Co., 25 N. E. 1058 , 125 N. Y. 7 , 10 L. R. A. 684, 21 Am. St. Rep. 716 . He also had in his own right an insurable interest in the household furniture, which was his personal property, and, as specified in the policy, was insured in the sum of $1,000. The Rosedale Vineyard Company, of which he was president, had an insurable interest in all the remainder of the property, by virtue of its possession under a contract for the *964 purchase thereof. Milwaukee Mechanics’ Ins. Co. v. B. S. Rhea & Son, 123 F. 9 , 60 C. C. A. 103 ; Phenix Insurance Co. v. Kerr, 129 F. 723 , 64 C. C. A. 251 , 66 L. R. A. 569; Alliance Ins. Co. v. Enders (C. C. A.) 293 F. 485 ; Dupuy v. Delaware…

This was an action on a California standard form fire in surance policy, containing the familiar pro visions that the policy shall be void if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership, or if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple, and that no officer, agent, or other representative of the company shall have power to waive any of the provisions or conditions of the policy, *962 except by writing indorsed thereon or added thereto. No testimony was offered by the defendant below, and there is no controversy over the facts. The policy was issued in the name of one Miura, the term of insurance was three years from and after January 1, 1923, and the subject of the insurance was a dwelling house, household furniture, and other property. The dwelling house and household furniture were totally destroyed by fire on September 25, 1923. The former was insured for the sum of $3,500, and the latter for $1,000. Inasmuch as the other items of property were neither damaged nor destroyed by the fire, further reference thereto is not deemed material.

At the time of the issuance of the policy, and at the time of the…