Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/664

 652 FBDEBAIi BEFOBTEB. �the property. In the ordinary acceptation of the term, who would be Gonsidered the owner of real estate exoept the grantee in possession, when no adverse claim bas been made by another ? The condition was satisfied by the facts : bis own- ership was entire, because it was of the whole property ; it was unconditional, because it was not subject to any def easance ; it was sole, because it was exclusive of others. It has been frequently held that an equitable title is sufficient to uphold a representation or warranty of ownership. Ramsey v. Pkœnix Ins. Co. 2 Fed. Eep. 429, and cases there cited. And in Burham v. lowa Central Ins. Co. 25 lowa, 328, it was held that the insurer had the absolute and sole ownership of the property because he was in possession under a contract of purehase, although the legal title was in another. �It was not suggested that the plaintiff had any doubt of the validity of bis title ; and, finally, it may be said of the defence, as w&a s&ia in Stevenson v.London e Lancashire Fire Ins.Co. 26 U. C.T. Eep. Ie8, where it appeared the buildings insured wexe outsidp the boundaries of the deed of the assured, owing to a, mistake in a survey: �"It is, we believe, a fiovel experiment ; we do not think it a creditable lane ; and, in the absence of direct binding authority, it has no intrinsic merjt to entitie it to succeed.'* �It will not be profitable to discuss the several further points made by the defendant as reasons why a new trial should be granted. They have been fully considered, but are deemed not to be well taken. In regard to the defects in the proofs of loss, by reason of the absence of the builder's certificate and that of the nearest notary or magistrate, it is sufficient to say there was ample evidence to authorize the jury to find that the defendant, through its agents, had repudiated all liability under the policy upon other grounds. The agents may not have known that the notary whose cer- tificate accompanied the proofs of loss was not the nearest notary, but it was as much their duty to ascertain if the proofs complied with the conditions of the policy as it was the plaintiff's. Instead of making objection, they treated the proofs of loss as satisfactory in all respects. �The motion is denied. ��� �