Grevemeyer v. Southern Mutual Insurance Co.

• Decision Date: 06 July 1869
• Citation: 62 Pa. 340
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Parties: Grevemeyer <I>versus</I> The Southern Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

Page 340

62 Pa. 340

Grevemeyer versus The Southern Mutual Fire Insurance Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 24 and 25, 1869.

July 6, 1869.

May 24th and 25th 1869.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of York county: Of May Term 1869, No. 83.

T. E. Cochran and W. C. Chapman, for plaintiff in error.—By a sale after insurance when part of the purchase-money for which the vendor holds a lien remains unpaid, the policy continues a contract to indemnify him against loss by fire: Stetson v. The Mass. M. F. Insurance Co., 4 Mass. 330; Varin v. The Canal Insurance Co., 10 Ohio 323; Trumbull v. Portage M. F. Insurance Co., 12 Id. 305; The Insurance Co. v. Updegraff, 9 Harris 513; Carruthers v. Sheddon, 6 Taunton 14; Miltenberger v. Beacom, 9 Barr 198; Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Findlay, 6 Whart. 498; Gordon v. Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Co., 2 Pick. 249; Reed v. Cole, 3 Burrows 1512; Strong v. Marine Insurance Co., 10 Pick. 40; Phillips on Insurance 120, pl. 187. Interest does not necessarily imply property: Angell on Insurance 105; Hancock v. Fishing Co., 3 Sumner 132. A judgment for purchase-money entered about the time of the sale is an interest in the land: Love v. Jones, 4 Watts 465. A mortgage is no greater interest: Rickert v. Madeira, 1 Rawle 328; Asay v. Hoover, 5 Barr 25; Wentz v. Dehaven, 1 S. & R. 317; Schuylkill Co. v. Thoburn, 7 Id. 419; Craft v. Webster, 4 Rawle 255; Ackla v. Ackla, 6 Barr 228; Clarke v. Stanley, 10 Id. 472. They cited also Horstman v. Gerker, 13 Wright 287; Cumberland Valley Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schell, 5 Casey 37.

E. H. Weiser and J. L. Mayer, for defendants in error.—A judgment is a mere personal security: Reed's Appeal, 1 Harris 478; Ludwig v. Highley, 5 Barr 132; Finch v. Winchelsea, 1 P. Wms. 277; Brace v. Marlborough, 2 Id. 491; Cover v. Black, 1 Barr 494. It is not an interest in land: Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 367; Conrad v. Atlantic Insurance Co., 1 Peters 386; Kemper v. Bavey, 5 McLean 507; Shrew v. Jones, 2 Id. 78; Leedom v. Plymouth Railroad Co., 5 W. & S. 266; Wilson v. Commissioners, 7 Id. 199; Williams v. Controllers, 6 Harris 275; Schaffer v. Cadwallader, 12 Casey 126; Ruth's Appeal, 4 P. F. Smith 173; Britton's Appeal, 9 Wright 172; Watt v. Steel, 1 Barr 386; Cake's Appeal, 11 Harris 186. An insurable interest must be founded on some title: Miltenberger v. Beacom, supra; Robinson v. N. Y. Insurance Co., 2 Caines' Cas. 357; Ellis on Insurance 21; Sadler's Co. v. Badcock, 2 Atk. 554; Lucena v. Crawford, 3 Bos. & Pul. 75; Norcross v. Insurance Co., 5 Harris 429; Arnold 260. The insured must have an interest, whether so stipulated in the policy or not: Wilson v. Trumbull Mut. Fire Insurance Co., 7 Harris 374.

The opinion of the court was delivered, July 6th 1869, by THOMPSON, C. J.

Four years after the plaintiff had effected an insurance on the property covered by the policy of the defendant on which the suit was brought, he sold and conveyed it to a third party, one Donahoe, and having received a portion of the purchase-money, took a judgment for the balance. Some months after this the property was destroyed by fire. Not having assigned the policy to the purchaser, he now claims to recover on it in satisfaction of his judgment, on the ground that to that extent he has an interest in the property sold and conveyed.

That there is material difference, especially in the law of insurance, between a mortgage and judgment is beyond question. The able argument of the counsel for the defendant in error, and the authorities cited by them, very clearly show this. In Britton's Appeal, 9 Wright 172, Strong, J., said: "They (mortgages) are in form defeasible sales, and in substance, grants of specific security, or interest in land for the purpose of security. Ejectment may be maintained by a mortgagee, or he may hold possession on the footing of ownership and with all its incidents."

That a mortgagee has an insurable interest on property is so well understood, that it would be a waste of time to cite authorities to prove it. Hence it is a very common thing to strengthen the security by insurance of the property for the benefit of the mortgagee. That its purpose is ordinarily a security, does not destroy the legality of the insurance. The interest in the property pledged or mortgaged is co-extensive with the security it is to satisfy. Being a specific lien, no other property is answerable. It is therefore a specific pledge of definite property, and the mortgagee has necessarily an interest in it.

But a judgment is a...