Delahay v. Memphis Ins.
Delahay v. Memphis Ins.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an action of covenant, on a policy, of insurance.
On the trial, a mortgage, executed by the plaintiff to secure a debt due by him to the mortgagee, and in full force at the date of the policy, was given in evidence by the defendant. The plaintiff did not disclose to the underwriters, the existence of the mortgage when he made his application for insurance. The court charged the jury, among other things, “that they must enquire, if, at the time of insurance, there was any incumbrance, or mortgage on the property insured, and whether plaintiff had informed defendant of the same. If a mortgage, or trust deed, or other incumbrance did exist, which the plaintiff did not communicate to defendant, it was such a concealment as would have rendered the policy void.” The jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was refused, and he prosecuted this appeal in error.
We think his honor erred in the instruction to the jury. A mortgage or deed of trust, is only a security for the debt, and if the property be destroyed, the debt remains; so that the assured has as much interest in protecting the property, as if there were no incumbrance on it. It may be that, practically,
The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded for another trial.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.