Stock of Goods Kept for Sale Other Special Cases.

property pending a suit for dissolution of the partnership, effects no change in the title, nor does the possession of such receiver constitute a change of possession, within meaning of policy. Keeney v. Home Ins. Co., 71 N. Y. 396.

alienation as will avoid the insurance. Scammon v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 6 Bradwell, 551 (Ill.)

285.- An illegal attachment does not avoid policy under condition that insurance should "cease from time property is levied on or taken into possession or cus

278.- Where a policy runs to a receiver in a designated suit, a mere change of re-tody under any proceeding in law or ceiver does not involve a change in title or possession. *Thompson v. Phonix Ins. Co., 136 U. S. 287; 34 L. ed. 408; 19 Ins. L. J. 481; 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1019.

equity." Miami Valley Ins. Co. v. Stanhope, 10 Ins. L. J. 159 (Ohio).

286.- An illegal assessment and seizure of insured property under U. S. revenue laws, does not create a lien under terms of a policy of insurance, nor is it a change of possession by legal process. The phrase legal process means valid legal process.

143.

287.- An invalid deed does not operate as a change of title. Kitterlin v. Milwaukee Ins. Co., 134 Ill. 647.

279. Stock of goods kept for sale. The condition of avoidance in case of sale does not apply to a stock of goods kept for sale, which may be sold and replaced, the policy protecting the stock on hand, | Runkle v. Citizens' Ins. Co., 6 Fed. Rep. and being suspended on its separation from the original goods. Therefore, the stock being sold to one who immediately resold to the assured's wife, and the company having consented to an assignment of the policy by the assured to his wife, it again becomes effectual by the union of ownership of the goods and of the policy. The company is estopped to deny the validity of the husband's assignment directly to the wife. An application for consent to an assignment of the policy is sufficient notice that the applicant would acquire an interest in the insured goods. Wolfe v. Security Fire Ins. Co., 39 N. Y. 49. 280.- Does not apply to a stock of goods kept for sale and disposed of and replaced in ordinary course of trade; but it does apply if sold in bulk or mass, or there is a change in a partnership owning the goods by which a new member is introduced. Biggs v. North Carolina Home Ins. Co., 88 N. C. 141; 13 Ins. L. J. 302.

281. As affected by validity or illegality. A void sale is not an alienation. School District v. Ætna Ins. Co., 62 Me. 330.

282. There can be no transfer of interest, where such transfer is invalid under the statute of frauds; and it is immaterial that the assured supposed that the title was changed. Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 65 N. Y. 6.

288. Other special cases. The policy was to be void "if the property shall be sold." The policy was assigned with the company's consent to a mortgagee, whose mortgage was in existence at the date of the policy; under these circumstances a delivery of the possession and control of the property to the mortgagee is not such a future alienation as to avoid the policy. Washington Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 17 Ohio St. 432.

289.- Mere seizure of the cotton by the U. S., in the absence of evidence of condemnation, or of act of forfeiture, could not divest assured's title or bar his recovery. Keith v. Globe Ins. Co., 52 Ill. 518.

290. The clause of avoidance for assignment without consent does not apply to a transfer by the register in bankruptcy to the assignee in bankruptcy. Starkweather v. Cleveland Ins. Co., 2 Abbott, 67 (U. S. Cir.)

291.- Policy insured Langer, official assignee, for benefit of creditors, another assignee of the estate being appointed. Held, that the policy did not vest by law in the new assignee, and that there was a violation of the condition to the effect that if the property was sold or trans283.- A void conveyance cannot oper- ferred, or if any change should take place ate to transfer interest of the assured. in the title or possession, etc., that the Jecko v. St. Louis F. & M. Ins. Co., 7 Mo. policy should be void, and that the interApp. 308. est of the assured expired upon the 284.— An invalid sale of property in-appointment of the new assignee. Held sured under a mortgage is not such an further, that in such a case an assignee

Cross References.

creased in any manner, or the property sold, or any change made in the title, or the property incumbered or used for other purposes, without consent, a change of title or encumbrance will not void the policy unless it increases the risk or decreases the security. Russell v. Cedar | Rapids Ins. Co., 78 Iowa, 216; 4 L. R. A. 538; 42 N. W. Rep. 654.

292.- A sale in partition suit does not change the interest of assured until an order of confirination of the sale has been granted by the court. Terpenning v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 14 Hun, 299 (N. Y.) 293.- Under the Georgia Code the execution and delivery of a trust deed as security for a debt, and providing for a reconveyance upon its payment, does not amount to an alienation, but creates a lien only, which does not void the policy. | absence of precise stipulations identifying Virginia Fire Ins. Co. v. Feagin, 62 Ga. 515.

and forbidding the transaction, a deed pledging the property to secure a debt, 294.- A quitclaim deed, executed and coupled with retention of possession by delivered as security, does not constitute the maker, and the right to sell in the a breach of the condition against trans-usual course of his business, and to refer or termination of interest of the assured. Jecko v. St. Louis F. & M. Ins. Co., 7 Mo. App. 308.

General Rules.

Subd. V. Location and description sured, and he afterwards, and before the

No. 244.

loss occurred, assigned the notes and Entirety and divisibility. mortgage and the policy, with the assent of the insurers, the ultimate liability of the insured upon his assignment of the

Subd. XI.
Nos. 15, 16, 29, 51.
Section four.

Subd. IV. Statement of interest. No. notes, and his consequent interest in hav12. ing the insurance money go to the satisSection five. faction of these notes in the hands of his Subd. III. Increase of hazard. No. 99. assignee, is a sufficient interest to sustain Subd. V. Interest of insured. No. 161. the policy and to authorize him to sue in Subd. VI. Ground not owned in fee his own name for a recovery of the insursimple. No. 2. ance money. New England Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Wetmore, 32 Ill. 221.

Subd. VIII. Foreclosure. Nos. 4, 26.
Subd. X. Assignment. Nos. 20, 74,

75a, 77, 82, 97, 104, 136.

Section ten. Agent. Nos. 163, 366.

Section eleven.

37, 44, 46.

Renewal.

2.- In general, a contract of insurance is a personal contract with the assured, Nos. 35, 36, and the policy does not pass, so as to continue the liability of the company, to an

Section thirteen. Mortgagor and mort- assignee or purchaser of the property ingagee. Nos. 101, 123, 145.

Section nineteen.

Subd. II.

Reinsurance. No. 5.

Section twenty-four. Waiver. No. 65.

X. ASSIGNMENT OF POLICY.

General rules.

Inoperative assignment.
Assignment as security.

sured, unless by the consent of the underwriters. Simeral v. Dubuque Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Iowa, 319.

3.- An invalid assignment of the policy cannot defeat the insurance. Crozier v. Phanix Ins. Co., 2 Hannay, 200 (N. B.)

4.- Policy provided that it should be void in case of alienation and encumbrance. Also that assignment of it must be made ten days after a sale of the propperty and that it must be sent to the office of the company forthwith for con

Assignment for benefit of creditors. sent, which would then be given to the

Assignment by parol.

When new contract with assignee.
Rights of assignee.

assignment. Property having been sold and consent of the company not having been obtained, suit being brought upon

Effect of making loss payable to the policy, held, that company was not third party.

absolutely bound to consent to the assign

Effect of indorsement to benefit of ment, but that condition become opera

third party.

Effect of entry in policy register.
Mortgagor and mortgagee.

Effect of acts or knowledge of agent.
Waiver.

Assignment after a loss.
Other special cases.
Cross references.

tive only in case it had first consented to the sale of the property. Home Ins. Co. v. Lindsey, 26 Ohio St. 348.

5.- Assignment of policy without written consent as required by its terms, renders it void. Waterhouse v. Gloucester Fire Ins. Co., 69 Me. 409.

6.- Assignment of the policy without an interest in the property insured is ineffectual to convey any right of action or property to such assignee. But it is immaterial that one precedes the other. Benninghoff v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 45; 93 N. Y. 495.

1. General rules. Where a policy has been assigned with the consent of the insurer, if it is necessary that the party insured should have an interest at the time of the loss, the amount of interest or kind is not material, so that it is a sub- 7.- Stipulation against alienation and sisting interest. Thus, where the insured assignment of the policy is valid, reasonheld certain notes secured by a mortgage able and just, meriting the support of the upon a house which he procured to be in-courts. Biggs v. North Carolina Home

Inoperative Assignment.

Ins. Co., 88 N. C. 141; 13 Ins. L. J. 302. Spare v. Home Ins. Co., 12 Ins. L. J. 864; 19 Fed. Rep. 14; Stolle v. Etna Ins. Co., 10 W. Va. 546.

8. A judgment against an insurance company as garnishee of the insured, without a judgment against the latter, or anything to show any indebtedness on his part to the judgment creditor, gives the company no right to attack the validity of an assignment of the policy, in an action by the assignee. Horst v. City of London F. Ins. Co., 73 Tex. 67; 11 S. W. Rep. 148.

9. If an insurer's agreement to an assignment of the policy is indorsed thereon, the fact that the assignment was made before the company's consent was indorsed is immaterial, although there is a condition making the policy void if assigned without such agreement. *Gould v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 134 Pa. 570; 47 Phila. Leg. Int. 335; 26 W. N. C. 168; 19 Atl. Rep. 793.

10. A clause of a policy though not in form an assignment thereof yet, if treated and intended as a compliance with an agreement so to assign, must be held to have accomplished the purpose and to be as binding as if legally formal. Glover v. Wells, 40 Ill. App. 350.

nature of the interest to be insured, but also of the claim due to B. Some months afterwards, A. assigned all his equitable claim and title under the bond to B., and, subsequent to such assignment of the property, B. paid up the balance due on the bond, and received a deed to the premises from the obligor of the bond. The policy provided: "The person for whose interest the insurance is made must be declared and named therein, nor can any policy or interest therein be assigned, but by the consent of the company, expressed by indorsement made thereon." In a suit in equity on such policy; held, that the policy must be regarded as having been, at its inception, assigned to B. with the consent of the company, and that the circumstance of the property insured having been subsequently transferred to B., the assignee, did not come within the above prohibition against assignment of the policy or an interest therein, and did not therefore avoid it. National Fire Ins. Co. v. Crane, 16 Md. 260.

13. Where a policy, which by its terms, if assigned without the consent of the insurers, was to be void, and the assured executed an assignment, to be delivered after such consent had been 11.- An assignment of a concurrent obtained, but which was not delivered, policy of insurance, with a sale of part of because consent was withheld; held, that the insured property, is a practical with- such assignment was inoperative to affect drawal of the goods retained from under the rights of the parties. Smith v. Monthe cover of that policy, and on a subse-mouth Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 50 Me. 96. quent loss the insured is entitled to recover the whole amount of the original policy, if that amount is required to pay the loss. *Clem v. German Ins. Co., 36 Mo. App. 560.

11a.— An assignment indorsed on the policy that the assignor's interest as owner of the property covered is assigned to the assignee subject to the company's consent, passes the ownership of the property itself, and not merely the assignor's interest in the policy. *Behr v. Gerson, 11 So. Rep. 115.

12. Inoperative assignment. A. held a bond for a deed of a certain piece of land, and borrowed money of B. to build thereon, and, to secure B., afterwards took out a policy on the buildings, "loss if any payable to B.," the insurance company being cognizant, not only of the

14.- Clause of forfeiture for assignment of the policy. One partner of the insured firm conveyed all his interest in the firm to a third person, in language broad enough to include the policy, but there being no assignment nor delivery of the policy, and another instrument by the vendee showing the policy was not to be transferred; held, the intent being otherwise, the policy did not pass. Massasoit Ins. Co., 56 Barb. 177 (N. Y.)

Kitts v.

15. An assignment made, it being contemplated to obtain the company's consent, or not to be effectual until such consent is obtained, is no breach of the condition against assignment without consent; and reforming the assignment with the assent of all the parties, removes all objections as to original absence of con

Assignment as Security.

sent. Manley v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 1 Held, that he could maintain action on it Lansing, 20 (N. Y.)

-

in his own name. Kingsley v. New England Mut. Ins. Co., 8 Cush. 393 (Mass.)

16. A condition against assigning the policy, or any interest in it, is not broken 23. Where policy has been assigned by a verbal understanding that the assured as security, with the consent of the comshould hold the policy for the benefit of pany, the assignee may sue on the policy the party with whom he had made a con- in his own name. Philips v. Merrimack tract of sale, any more than a mortgagor's Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 10 Cush. 350 (Mass.) agreement to keep insured for the benefit 24. Insured assigned his policy to P., of a mortgagee is an assignment, for such as collateral security, and P., with assignment is only a security, an insur- consent of the company, assigned it to R., able interest and a liability for the debt also as collateral security; but neither of still remaining in the insured. Washing- the assignees had any interest in, or lien ton Fire Ins. Co. & Atlantic Ins. Co. v. upon the property insured. Action was Kelly, 32 Md. 421. brought in the names of assignor and assignee. Held, that the assignment of the policy would not enable assignee to maintain an action in case of loss; but the assignor, alone, might recover on it to the extent of the loss. Peabody v. Washington County Mut. Ins. Co., 20 Barb. 339 (N. Y.)

17.- A policy "not assignable without consent" is issued to two partners, one of whom afterwards sold his joint interest to the other. Held, not such an alienation as would avoid the policy, even had there been a clause forbidding alienation of the property, which the above does not do. Pierce v. Nashua Fire Ins.

25.- The clause in a policy, which prohibits an assignment of the policy, without the consent of the insurance company in writing, does not apply to a deposit of the policy by way of pledge, with a creditor of assured. Ellis v. Kreutzinger, 27 Mo. 311.

26.- A policy on a mechanic's lien interest was assigned as collateral security with the consent of the company. Held, that the assignment of the policy was valid, though unaccompanied by any transfer of the indebtedness secured by the mechanic's lien. Stout v. City Fire Ins. Co. of New Haven, 12 Iowa, 371.

27. An assignment of a policy of insurance upon a stock of goods effected in the name of the assignor, made as collateral security for a debt due from the assignor to the assignee, with an agreement that in case of loss by fire the assignee shall collect the money and apply

21.- An insurance policy placed in the hands of an attorney for collection, after loss, with instructions to apply the pro-it on the debt, attaches in equity, as a lien ceeds in payment of the owner's debt to a third person, is not assigned to the latter. Aultman v. McConnell, 34 Fed. Rep. 724.

22. Assignment as security. Party had sold the premises insured, and assigned the policy, with the consent of the insurer, to the purchaser, and taken back a mortgage on same property, and had the policy re-assigned to himself, for security, with the consent of the insurers.

upon the amount due on the policy to the extent of the debt, as soon as the loss occurs, as against the assignor and all persons asserting a claim thereto under him. It is not necessary to the validity of such contract, that the assignees have any interest in the property insured, nor that the insurer consent to the assignment Bibend v. Liverpool & London Fire and Life Ins. Co., 30 Cal. 78.

28. A condition against assigning the