Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/406

 398 FEDERAL REPORTER. �jections to plaintiff's right to recover. may be considered together, and may be disposed of by the answer that Zimmer was the equitable owner of the property, and was the uncon- ditional owner, except as to the plaintifï, and plaintiiï's interest was sufficiently indicated by notice that he had such an interest in the premises that the loss would be payable to him. �A party in possession of insured premises under a valid' Bubsisting contract of purchase is the equitable owner, and bas an insurable interest, although he bas not paid the whole consideration money. He is not guilty of a misrepresentation if he represents the house as his when he applies for insur- ance, and there is no breach of warranty if the house is de- scribed as his dwelling-house in the policy. The statement and the state of facts are consistent with each other. There is no misrepresentation, because an intent to deceive cannot be inferred. There is no breach of warranty, because the representation is true in substance. Strong v. Manfrs. Ins. Go. 10 Pick, 40; Mtna Fire Ins. Co. v. Tyler, 16 Wend. 385 ; Davis V. Quincy Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 10 Allen, 113; Nihlo v. North American Ins. Co. 1 Sandf. 551; Laidlow v. lAverpool, etc., Ins. Co. 13 Grant Ch. 377. �It was not incumbent upon Zimmer to make a fuUer dis- closure of his interest in the premises when he applied for Insurance. His failure to do so was not an "omission to make known a faotmaterial to the risk," within the meaning of the policy. This clause in the policy is to be read with the other clauses of which it forms part, and, applying the maxim "noscitur a wciis," the word omission is equivalent to concealment, in the contemplation of the policy. The cases cited are authorities to flie efïect that in view of Zimmer's interest as equitable owner of the premises, in the absence of specifie inquiry, he communicated ail that was material to the risk, and was not bound to speoify the precise extent or nature of his interest. �^ The fact that Zimmer moved out of the dwelling-house and let it to tenants, is not a defence within the condition that avoids the policy, "if any change take place in title or po^f ��� �