Court Opinion

ID: 9868364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:31:45.794509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:49.790140
License: Public Domain

ON Petition to Rehear.
In this case we have been presented with a petition to rehear, in which our attention is called to a misstatement of fact in the original opinion, to-wit, that “the mortgagor insured the property, without the knowledge of the mortgagee.”
This statement was inadvertently, made, as the record clearly shows the contrary. But mere knowledge by the mortgagee that the property had been insured, as provided in the mortgage, would not make the mortgagee liable - for the premiums on the policies of insur-*103anee unless it had either expressly or impliedly agreed to pay them. Muddle v. Van Slyke, 118 N. Y. Supp., 474.
The only question which was considered by the Court of Appeals, and which we dealt with in the original opinion, was whether the standard clause in the insurance policies here involved was a condition or a covenant.
In the brief filed by defendants in the Court of Appeals it was said:
“The only question in the case for determination in this court, or in the court below, was purely a question of law, based upon the construction of the standard mortgage clause attached to the policies.”
With reference to said clause counsel for defendants, in their petition for certiorari filed herein, say:
“The question before the court under the finding of the Court of Appeals is whether or not this provision constitutes a covenant to pay the premiums, or whether or not it constitutes a simple condition. ’ ’
The assignments of error in this court are as follows:
1. “The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Insurance Company was not a party to the deed of trust.”
It clearly was not, and we are unable to see how it would affect the result even if it were.
2. “The Court of Appeals erred in construing the mortgage clause to be a condition instead of a covenant. ’ ’
We disposed of this assignment in the original opinion.
3. “The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of the circuit court and in dismissing plaintiff’s suit and taxing it with the costs of the cause.”
This assignment is too general and does not conform to the rules of this court, and, for the reasons herein-*104before stated, neither this assignment nor assignment No. 1 was dealt with in the original opinion.
. A careful consideration of the record convinces us that the . question of liability of the mortgagee upon the idea of an express or implied promise to pay these premiums was not made and relied upon in the other courts, and that in taking the testimony no such question was in the minds of counsel.
The construction given to the clause in question by the court in the original opinion is not questioned, and that being the only question before the court, it results that the petition to rehear will be denied.