Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/555

 his main story which he must recollect if he has any memory at all, and with respect to which he is open to contradiction if untrue is un- worthy of belief.” Gibbons v. Potter, 30 N. J. Eq. 204. Assignment of property and insurance thereon as security for a debt renders the policy void under a provision in the policy making it void if the interest of the insured is other than unconditional ownership, or if any change takes place in his interest, title, or possession. Smith v. Ins. Co. (S. D.) 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 172; 137 N. W. 47; 14 R. C. L, p. 1120.

A mortgage is within a condition against conveyance of any interest in the property. 79 Tex. 23, 11 L. R. A. 293, also 88 Mich. 94, 13 L. R. A. 684.

A provision against change of interest is violated by the inclusion of the property in a mortgage thereof through negligence or inattention of the assured. Fireman’s Fund v. Barker, 6 Colo. App. 535.

A condition making the policy void if the interest of the insured in the property should be changed in any manner, whether by act of the parties or by operation of law will include the giving of a mortgage upon the property. O’Neil v. Ottawa Ins. Co. 30 U. C. C. P. 151, 12 Can. L. J. 2071.

A conveyance, absolute in form by the insured is a transfer or change in title, avoiding the policy, although there is a written defeasance dehors the deed or an equivalent contemporaneous parol agreement. Barry v. Hamburg Ins. Co. 11 N. Y. 1, 18 N. E. 405.

A conveyance to secure the payment of a debt for the construction of a building made without insurers consent, invalidates the policy. Athens Mutual F. Ins. Co. v. Evans, 132 Ga. 703, 64 S. E. 993; Gibbs v. Ins. Co. 61 N. W. 137 (Minn.).

Occupancy of a dwelling house implies the actual use of the house as a dwelling place, the presence of human beings therein as at their customary place of abode. Ashworth v. Builders’ Mut. F. Ins. Co. 112 Mass. 422, 17 Am. Rep. 117; Herrman v. Adriatic F. Ins. Co. 85 N. Y. 162, 39 «Am. Rep. 644; Burner v. German-American Ins. Co. 103 Ky. 370, 45 S. W. 109; Stoltenberg v. Continental Ins. Co. 106 Iowa 565, 68 Am. St. Rep. 323, 76 N. W. 835; Sonneborn v. Manufacturers’ Ins. Co., supra; Bonenfant v. American F. Ins. Co. 76 Mich. 564, 43 N. W. 682. And the leaving some one to look after the house when it becomes