" See, also, the following: 4 Joyce on Ins. (2d Ed.) ยง 2470; Gould v. Ins. Co., 114 Me. 416, 96 A. 732. L.R.A. 1917A, 604, and note; Home, etc., Ins. Co. v. Koob, 113 Ky. 360, 68 S.W. 453, 58 L.R.A. 58, 101 Am.St.Rep. 354; Guest v. Ins. Co., 66 Mich. 98, 33 N.W. 31; Carpenter v. Ins. Co., 61 Mich. 635, 28 N.W. 749; Hall v. Ins. Co., 90 Mich. 403, 51 N.W. 524; Hackett v. Cash, 196 Ala. 403, 72 So. 52; Cannon v. Ins. Co., 49 La. Ann. 1367, 22 So. 387; Doran v. Ins. Co., 86 N.Y. 635; Church v. Ins. Co., 54 Minn. 162, 55 N.W. 909; Harvey v. Ins. Co., 250 Mass. 164, 145 N.E. 35; Wheeler v. Ins. Co., 131 Mass. 1; Humble v. Ins. Co., 85 Kan. 140, 116 P. 472, Ann.Cas. 1912d 630, and note; Kelley v. Ins. Co., 262 Ill. 158, 104 N.E. 188, 50 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1164; Ginners, etc., Ins. Co. v. Wiley (Tex.Civ.App.) 147 S.W. 629; Dumphy v. Ins. Co., 107 Tex. 107 . 174 S.W. 814; De Shields v. Ins. Co., 125 S.C. 457, 118 S.E. 817; 26 C.J. 264; Collins v. Ins. Co., 184 Iowa 747, 169 N.W. 199. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the insurance procured by the Murray Gin Company did not inure to the benefit of appellee.