Stephens v. Illinois Mutual Fire Insurance

Citations

• 43 Ill. 327

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance—of a mortgage interest—what constitutes the same—agreement to redeem—effect of—rights of mortgagor. A owned certain premises and mortgaged them to B; afterward, he procured insurance upon them, and then sold to C, at the same time assigning to him the policy of insurance, by consent of the company. B commenced suit for the foreclosure of his mortgage, making A and C parties, but the litigation was subsequently compromised, by an agreement in writing, that B should take a decree for an amount equal to the face of the claim, and, in consideration therefor, A and C should have two years from the day of sale to make redemption. A decree was entered, providing for redemption, within fifteen months; and sale was accordingly had, and the premises bid in by an agent of B, the mortgagee, and afterward, in about fourteen months and eight days after the sale, were destroyed by fire. In an action by C against the insurance company, to recover the amount of the insurance, held, that, had a third person, for a valuable consideration, and without notice, acquired title under the decree, within the two years, his rights would be governed by it, without reference to the ageeement.</p> <p>3. The premises having been purchased by the plaintiff's in the foreclosure suit, as against them, the agreement is operative.</p> <p>3. The proof shows, that the decree and agreement were made together, one being the consideration for the other, and there is no inconsistency in permitting both to stand, it being the undoubted intention to give the defendants two years’ redemption.</p> <p>4. Under this agreement, the subsisting relation of mortgagor and mortgagee was substantially continued, and a tender by defendants of the redemption money at any time within the two years, would have been good.</p> <p>5. At the time of the fire, C’s position was that of a mortgagor, with a right to redeem; and, as such, he had a substantial, insurable interest, which estate could not have been lost