Hocking v. Virginia Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 November 1897
• Citation: 42 S.W. 451,99 Tenn. 729
• Parties: HOCKING et al. v. VIRGINIA FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

42 S.W. 451

99 Tenn. 729

HOCKING et al. v. VIRGINIA FIRE & MARINE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 3, 1897

Appeal from chancery court, Knox county; H. B. Lindsay, Chancellor.

Action by Viola Hocking and others against the Virginia Fire & Marine Insurance Company on a fire insurance policy. From a judgment of the court of chancery appeals in favor of defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Junius Parker and H. T. Cooper, for appellants.

Webb & McClung, for appellee.

BEARD J.

This bill is filed by Viola Hocking and her husband, who sue in their own right, and for the use of J. E. Hancock, to recover on a policy of fire insurance, issued by the defendant company to and upon the application of Viola Hocking upon her dwelling house, the policy reciting on its face that "the loss, if any, was payable to J. E. Hancock, as his interest may appear." The property covered by this policy was destroyed by fire during its life, and the question here presented is, can a recovery be made for the use and benefit of Hancock, the mortgagee, when the record discloses beyond all doubt that the mortgagor, Viola, burned the house for the purpose of realizing on this insurance policy. It is conceded that Mrs. Hocking, by her conduct, has forfeited all right to recover, but it is insisted that this forfeiture does not affect the mortgagee. While a mortgagee to whom the loss under an insurance policy issued to the mortgagor, and covering the property of the latter, is made payable "as his interest may appear," is, in a large sense, an assignee to the extent of his interest ( Donaldson v. Insurance Co., 95 Tenn. 280, 32 S.W 251), yet he does not acquire a full and absolute right, and in case of loss, recovers in the right of the party assured and not in his own. In the present case, it was the property of Viola Hocking that was insured and destroyed by fire, and it was she who took out this policy for his benefit. If at any time after its issuance the mortgage in question had been discharged, the interest of the mortgagee in this policy would have terminated, and Mrs. Hocking alone would have been entitled to its proceeds. Claiming through the assured Hancock had no higher or greater right against the defendant company than she; and, as it is clear that she, being the incendiary of this property, would be repelled, he (the mortgagee) must abide the forfeiture which the conduct of his mortgagor has brought...