18 momnu. muroimm.
this property as the property of the latter, for the benefit of the
former, or otherwise than it was done. It was insured for three year;
in succession, at the request of the Lurches, as the property of the
plaintiff, and exactly as Aaron Lurch described it in the first appli-
cation made and written by him in 1879. What was the reason or
purpose of this misrepresentation it is not material now to inquire.
The Lurches may have honestly intended to insure this property for
the benent of the plaintiff, but were mistaken as to the proper method
of so doing. But in that case, the plaintiff must abide the result of
their action, just as he would if they had refused or neglected to in-
sure it at all. He had no control over them in this respect,—the_y*
were not under any legal obligation to insure the property for him,-
and in fact were acting for themselves. But on the evidence, the
whole case of the plaintiff is so vague, improbable, and contradictory
that it is diiicult to assign- any reasonable and correct motive for
their action. But counsel for the plaintiff insist that the Lurches in
procuring this policy to issue were acting as the agents of the de-
fendant, and, therefore, their mistake, if any, is the mistake of the
defendant, of which it cannot now take advantage. When the alleged ·
understanding between the plaintiff and the Lurches about this in-
surance was hrst had, and when it was first effected, the latter we1·e
not the agents of the defendants for any purpose, and what followed
thereafter was in strict conformity with what had been done. But it
is not worth while to refine on this point. The Lurches were evi-
dently acting for themselves in this matter. They were not under
any legal obligation to have this property insured for the beneht of the
plaintiff, and if they voluntarily did so, it was in fact for their own
benefit rather than his. In such case, if the property was destroyed
by fire, they would so far pay their debt with the insurance, and the
‘ plaintiff would get nothing but what he was otherwise entitled to, and
' they might be otherwise able to pay.
Before commencing this suit this plaintiff brought an action at
law in this court, on this policy, as it is, claiming an insurable in-
terest in the property, as a judgment creditor of the Lurches, and, on
a demurrer to the complaint, the court held that he had such an in-
terest, but he could not recover unless it also appeared that the
debtor had not other property sufficient to satisfy the judgment. S
Sawy. 618; [S. G. 15 Fan. Bm. 707.] The plaintiff did not amend his
complaint so as to make this allegation, as he certainly would if he,
could; and the only inference is that he suffered no loss by the nre
and was not benefited by the insurance. But another sufficient an-
- swer to this claim is that the Lurches could not act as the agents of
the defendants in this matter of the insurance of their own property
for either the direct or indirect benefit of themselves. The law has
too much regard for the inhrrnity of human nature to allow a person
to be subject to the temptation of acting as an agent in a matter in