Court Opinion

ID: 8639900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:51:29.16827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:03.975809
License: Public Domain

WOODS, Circuit Judge.
The case, as made by the bill, is not supported by the evidence. The answers and testimony show that Johnson & Goodrich, at and before the time the insurance was taken out by them, were the commission merchants of Green, and were his creditors in the sum of $4,629.06; that they desired to have insurance on the gin house and gin stands on the Bell plantation, to secure their debt in case of loss by fire, and so informed Green; that Green assented to their proposition to take out said insurance at his cost, and wrote to Johnson & Goodrich to remind them to take out such insurance. Johnson & Goodrich accordingly indorsed the insurance upon an open policy which they had in the Factors’ and Traders' Insurance Co. for the sum of $5.500, payable to themselves in case of loss, and charged the premium to Green. Neither Johnson nor Goodrich knew of the clauses in the mortgages given to secure the notea held by complainants, providing for insurance of said premises; they did not, nor did either of them nor any one in their office,, with their knowledge, inform Gwynn that the property was insured for the benefit of the mortgagees or insured for the benefit of any one else; nor did John H. Green ever inform Foster & Gwynn, or either of them, that he had caused the premises to be Insured for the benefit of complainants, through Johnson & Goodrich or any one else. In short, the whole ease made by the bill is overturned by the answer and evidence, except the averments that complainants are the holders of three notes of said John H. Green, secured each by a separate mortgage, and that the last two mortgages each provided for insurance of the premises, as above set forth. No insurance was ever taken out by Green for the benefit of complainants. Johnson & Goodrich acted in their own behalf for their own benefit, and took a policy payable to themselves, for the security of their own debt, without any knowledge that Green had ever agreed to insure for the benefit of complainants. By what rule of law or equity the complainants can claim the proceeds of the insurance I do not know. It is said that Johnson & Goodrich had no insurable interest in the premises. If that is so, the result is that the policy is void. It does not follow that some one else who had an insurable interest, but for whom no insurance had been taken out, is to be substituted in the policy for Johnson & Goodrich. The insurance company made no contract of insur-anee with the complainants, and they cannot insist on the fruits of a contract to which they were in no manner parties, and which was not made for their benefit. Bill dismissed.