Foote v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1876 |
| Citation | 119 Mass. 259 |
| Parties | F. E. Foote v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company. Same v. Hanover Fire Insurance Company. Same v. Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued September 29, 1875
Hampden. Actions of contract upon three policies of insurance on the same building. The cases were tried together in the Superior Court before Colburn, J. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in each case; and the defendants alleged exceptions, so much of which as is material to the point decided appears in the opinion.
Exceptions sustained.
A. L Soule, for the defendants.
M. P Knowlton, for the plaintiff.
OPINION
All the policies upon which these actions are brought contained, in substantially the same words, a provision which makes them void if any change takes place in the title or possession of the property, "whether by sale, transfer or conveyance legal process or judicial decree." They were made to Pomeroy, who was then the owner of the equity of redemption, and were "payable in case of loss to F. E. Foote, mortgagee, as his interest may appear."
After the policies were issued, Pomeroy conveyed his interest in the premises by quitclaim deed to Foote, the plaintiff, and at the same time took back a bond for a reconveyance of the same to him, his heirs and assigns, upon the payment of a sum named, which was just the amount then due on his two mortgages. The bond was not acknowledged or recorded, and the defendants had no notice of the existence of either the deed or the bond until after the fire.
After the delivery of the deed and bond, and until the fire, in November, 1873, Pomeroy occupied a part of the building without payment of rent, paid taxes, made repairs, controlled the occupation of the other tenants, and up to June, 1873, collected the rents and paid them over to the plaintiff. After that, the plaintiff collected the rents, but had nothing else to do with the premises.
The debts secured by the original mortgages had not been paid, the securities were not taken up, and were not discharged, otherwise than as affected by the giving of the quitclaim deed and the bond.
We are of opinion that Pomeroy's deed effected a change of title and possession in the property insured, within the meaning of these policies. The absolute record title passed by it to the plaintiff. He could convey the land, and give a good and indefeasible title as against Pomeroy. It was subject to attachment for his debts. He had all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Insurance Company of California v. Barwick
...v. Milner, 21 Id., 399; Schumitsch v. American Ins. Co., 48 Wis. 30; Western Massachusetts Ins. Co. v. Riker, 10 Mich. 280; Foote v. Phenix Ins. Co., 119 Mass. 259; Farmers Ins. Co. v. Archer, 36 Ohio St. Baldwin v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 60 N. H., 164; Tallman v. Atlantic Fire Ins. Co., 3 Keyes......
-
Weems v. American Sec. Ins. Co.
...mortgagee to the extent of his lien or charge upon the premises. Franklin Saving Inst. v. Cent. Mut. Co., 119 Mass. 240; Foote v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 119 Mass. 259. In Amory v. Reliance Ins. Co., 208 Mass. 378, 94 N.E. 677 (1911) the Court held in explaining the rights of the appellant ......
-
Palmer Sav. Bank v. Insurance Co. of North America
... ... fire insurance issued on March 12, ... 1890, by the defendant to James W. ins for $400, and made ... payable in case of loss to the plaintiff ... Cases cited supra; Barrett v. Insurance Co., 7 ... Cush. 175; Foote v. Insurance Co., 119 Mass ... 259; Franklin Sav. Inst. v. Central Mut ... ...
-
Vallely v. First National Bank of Grafton, a Corp.
... ... Tomlinson ... v. Monmouth Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 47 Me. 232; Foote v ... Hartford Ins. Co., 119 Mass. 259; Red ... ...