Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/663

 MILLER V. ALLIAIICE INS. CO. OF BOSTON. 6S1 �estate upon -which the iuetired buildings stood. The policy provides that if the intereSt of the assured in the property be any other than the entire, unconditional, and sole ownef- ship of the property, for the use and benefit of the as- sured, or if the building stands on leased ground, it must be so represented and expressed in the written part of the policy, otherwise the policy to be void. The plaintiff had introduced a deed in which he was named as grantee, which purported to convey to him "a certain mill-site and all the buildings thereunto belonging," situated as therein described. The defendant offered to show that the grantors of the plain- tiff's grantor were only entitled to an easement in this prop- erty. The deed contained apt ternis of description to convey to the plaintiff the land as well as the buildings upon it. A site, according to Webster, is a seat or ground plot ; and a mill-site is the place where a mill stands. Land will often pass by a conveyance without any specifie designation of it. Everything essential to the beneficiai use and enjoyment of the property designated, in the absence of language indicat- ing a different intention on the part of the grantor, is to be eonsidered as passing by the conveyance. Sheets v. Selden's Lessee, 2 Wall. 177. In Whitney v. Olney, 3 Masoa, 280, it was held by Judge Story that the devise of a mill and its appurtenances passed to the devisee net merely the building, but all the land under the mill and necessary for its use, and commonly used with it. In Gibson\. Brockway,8 N. H. 465, a conveyance of "a certain tenement, being one-half of a corn- mill, with the privileges and appurtenances," was held to pass not only the mill, but the land on which it was situated. �The defendant's ofifer of proof was, therefore, nothing more than a proposition to show that the plaintiff, although he had a title to the mill property which apparently vested in him the sole, unconditional, and entire ownership of the property, had a defeetive title. The condition of the policy refers to the estent of the insurable interest of the plaintiff, and not to the validity of his title. So long as the plaintiff, under claim of right, had the exclusive use and enjoyment of the insured property, without any assertion of an adverse right or interest in it by any other person, he was the owner of ��� �