EAMSEY V. PHŒNIX INS. CO. 429 �propriety or decency of things, should be aecepted as control- ling. , It can hardly be doubted that if the parties here had become husband and wife they would bave been regarded as joined in an unnatural union, and as victims of a corrupted moral taste, to be pitied and avoided, if not as objects of detes- tation; and in this view the plaintifif may consider herself fortunate that she bas been saved from such a future by the selfish and peradious conduct of the defendant. A new trial is granted. ���Eamsey V. The Phœnix Insubanoe Company. {Circuit Court, If. D. Mu York. March, 1880.) �IirsDBANCB — Equitable Ownbr — Insurablb Intbrest. — A party in possession of iiisured premises, under a valid subsisting contract for purchase of the same, is the eçiuitable owner, and has an insurable interest therein �Bamb — Same — Representation as to Ownership. — It is not a breach of warranty of ownership for such party, upon an application for insurance of such property, to represent that it is his property, although he may not have paid the entire amount of the purchase money. �Bame — CoSDiTioNs IN PoLiCY — REPRESENTATION. — A poliCy of insur- ance contained a provision that if there was any false representation by the assured as to the condition, situation, or occupancy of the premises, omission to make known every tact material to the risk, * * * or it the property should be sold or transferred, or any change take place in the title or possession, whetherby judicial decree, legal process, vol- untary transfer or conveyance, or if the assured was not the uncon- ditional and sole owner, or if his interest was not fuUy stated, the same should be void. The assured was the vendee in possession, under con- tract of sale ; the policy was also made payiible to vendor, to the extent of his interest. In an action npon the policy by such vendor, hdd, that it was not a misrepresentation for such vendee, in applying for such insurance, to represent himself as the owner of such premises. �Same — Change in OccupANcr.— Nor was it a " change of title or pos- session" for him to have the same occupied by tenants, instead of him- seU ; but that the change thereby contemplated referred to the posses- sory right, and not mere occupation. �Same — Proofs of Loss — Waivek dp Defects in. — Imperfections in pre- liminary proofs are deemed waived by a repudiation of any liability under the policy to the pergon entitled to demand payment. ����
