New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-18
superior OOurs......n1 MONDAY, tarcn II.
Refoye Chief Iusfic0 Oaklay

Nelc- York ms. Co. and Rboda Smith
against the East Ricer ms C0-The complaint states that
on Ah October, 1929 RcbeIL Hoe and Rachel his wife
(since deceased and Hhods Smith Of the plaintiffs in
this case executed to Jane TempetOna bond and mortgage
On The property Nos @ and 81 God-st for zoos aud in
1885 RhOda being tue sole owner n Zee OF SAID premises
xeCued 10 said Jane another bond and mortgage ~
SfOlC-and that both Of said mortgages assigned 70
tie New York ms Co for valuable ensiaeratOn; thai j.
was part of q agreement tina, the building the prem
Northwestern Ins Co Of Osgego and coo in the East
River ms Co 90 the policies having in consideration n
StO IN each been renewed Isl May 1913. 10 con-
nnuc 10 st Nav 1919: that on 6th February 1912
occurred by which tie building injured 10 the amount
OF S64O0 and subsequently CLAIM, being is proportion,
made against defendant for $500 The present salt Is
Co for hc amount
Mr. Holden ia opening the case for plaintiff stated thst
Mrs Smith aged lady, residing IN The upper part Of
tie State recently deceased that her SON Matthew Smith
In his life time, was of the firm Of K. Hoe x Co. ana
We. eo e,e Ct.ei Hus'ses O is soo slss5 ~ so
advances, &C hal 10 Inc ear 1913 Mrs Smh, WIN
view greater facility In The management OF the property
(Which was under bond and mortgage 10 greater amount
IN its vtlue) gave deed OF the premises for the
siderson OF SO to Mr. Robert Hoe, subject 70 oil the 10
cRmbranceS The intention being not bona hde sale or
usnser, but 20 enable MIN 10 ac more fully n regard 70 H.
The Esst River Insurance Co now sci up e;hncaiy 10
ayodsrce Of The payment OF their loss by saying that there
10 condition in the policy we believe tle Standing printed
par that IN Of transfer termination Of the inter
est Of The assured either by sale Otherwise without tue
corte1t OF the COMPANY in wiling The roicv shall be void
and of no effect Tie terms Of the policy were that IL the
event OF alOss the amount should be pad 70 the New YORK
Insurance Co. one Of the panlhs The defense also al
leges hat proof Of the loss not made BY Mrs
Smith On hose name tie policies were originally male
out and continued 10 be renewed but by the NewYork
Insurance Co. II stated that the proof also sub
frequently in Mrs s. name Ths defendant aso alleges,
hat they are liable 70 pay they are entitled TO az assign
meut u lie mortgage, by way OF a5rOgallon &c.
Mr. H. also stated hat the other company, the ~ w H.
surance Coz although the suggestion was made 70 Them
also contest payment these technical greunds refused
10 do So and after sdvsement paid their share OF he loss
Mt H. referred 10 the fact ofh0w little security there would
be in The holding OF Poeyof insurance. a. collateral II
could be vidaed by real nominal transfer Of tie prop
ery without the knowledge Of The holder ss sci up
IN lhs case.
The Court permitted testimony (Which wsS objected TOT
with view showing that Mrs s. or her essle being
liable on her bonds retained nsursbe interest on The
buldirgS IL shown that beside tie bonds and mort
cages 10 Jane Tempeton held with The policy OF insu-
rsncel by the New York Co there were mortgages by MIRA
s. to Mr. Benz Brown 10 secure advances Verdict Tor
plaintiff IL with leave 10 defendant 70 make case,
4c.