Batts v. Sullivan

Stacy, J.

It will be observed at the outset that the controversy here presented is between the landlord and the tenant, and the validity of the insurance policy is in nowise involved. This has been paid and the insurance company is not a party to the proceeding. The case arises *131 out of a ’contest over tbe question as to whether the landlord, by virtue of her legal title and interest in the tobacco, is entitled .to any portion of the insurance money.

It is true that under our statute, C. ,S., 2355, the possession and title to all crops, raised by a tenant or cropper, in the absence of a contrary agreement, are deemed to be vested in the landlord until the rent and advancements have been paid.

S. v. Austin, 123 N. C., 749 ;

Boone v. Darden, 109 N. C., 74 ;

Smith v. Tindall, 107 N. C., 88 . But this perforce does not divest the tenant of an insurable interest in the crops before division. “It is well settled that any person has an insurable interest in property by the existence of which he will gain an advantage, or by the destruction of which he will suffer a .loss, whether he has or has not any title in, or lien upon, or possession of, the property itself.”

Harrison v. Fostlage, 161 U. S., 57 ;

Eastern R. Co. v. Relief F. Ins. Co., 98 Mass., 423 .

“It may be stated as a general proposition, sustained by all the authorities, that whenever a person will suffer a loss by a' destruction of the property, he has an insurable interest therein.”

Gilman v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 81 Me., 488;

Getchell v. Mercantile, etc., Ins. Co., 109 Me., 274; 42 L. R. A. (N. S.), 135. And to the same effect are our own decisions, Gerringer v. N. C. Home Ins. Co., 133 N. C., 407 ;

Grabbs v. Mut. Fire Ins. Assn., 125 N. C., 389 , and cases there cited.

It is also a well recognized principle, and uniformly upheld by the decisions, that the different interests in the same property, such as that held by a mortgagor or lienor on the one hand, and that of a mortgagee or lienee on the other, and such kindred relations, are each separately insurable.

“Wherever property, either by force of law or by the contract of the parties, is so charged, pledged, or hypothecated that it stands as a security for the payment of a debt, or the performance of a legal duty, each of the parties (the owner of the lien, and the person against whose property it exists) has an insurable interest in the property. The one, that the security shall remain sufficient; the other, that it may be kept unimpaired and the property restored to his use or enjoyment in whole or in part, after the incumbrance is relieved. And each may insure his separate interest at one and the same time without incurring the imputation of double insurance, provided the applications and policies are the individual and separate acts of each.”- Commercial Fire Ins. Co. v. Capital City Ins. Co., 81 Ala., 320 ; May on Insurance, sees. 80 to 87, inclusive; Flanders on Fire Insurance, 342 et seq.; Insurance Co. v. Stinson, 103 U. S., 25 ;

Niagara Ins. Co., 60 N. Y., 619 ;

Cumberland Bone Co. v. Andes Ins. Co., 64 Me., 466;

Franklin Fire Ins. Co. v. Coates, 14 Md., 285 , and Humboldt Fire Ins. Co., 12 Iowa, 287 . In the *132 last ease it was said, “Any interest is insurable, if tbe peril against wbicb insurance is made would bring upon tbe insured, by its immediate and direct effect a pecuniary loss.”

In Insurance Co. v. Reid, 171 N. C., 513 , a case involving tbe rights of mortgagor and mortgagee, tbis doctrine is clearly stated as follows:

“It is well recognized tbat a mortgagee and mortgagor may eacb insure tbe mortgaged property for bis own benefit, and where a mortgagee has taken out such insurance at bis own expense, without stipulations in favor of tbe mortgagor or conditions of any kind imposing an obligation or duty on tbe mortgagee to protect tbe property for tbe mortgagor’s benefit, such mortgagee, in case of loss of tbe property by fire or damage thereto, is not accountable to tbe mortgagor for tbe amount collected from tbe insurance company, either on tbe debt or otherwise.”

Leyden v. Lawrence, 79 N. J. L., 113;

Ins. Co. v. Woodbury, 45 Me., 447;

Fire Ins. Co. v. Bond, 48 Neb., 743 ;

Gillespie v. Ins. Co., 61 W. Va., 169 ;

Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co., 55 N. Y., 343 ; 1 Jones on Mortgages (4 ed.), sec. 420. In Ins. Co. v. Woodbury tbe principles referred to .are stated as follows:

“a. If a mortgagee insures bis own interest without any agreement between him and tbe mortgagor, and a loss accrues, tbe mortgagor is not entitled to any part of tbe sum paid on such a loss to be applied to tbe discharge or reduction of bis mortgage debt.

“b. When tbe mortgagee effects insurance at tbe request and cost and for the benefit of tbe mortgagor as well as bis own, the mortgagor has tbe right in case of loss to have tbe money applied in discharge of bis indebtedness.”

Applying these principles, we think bis Honor’s charge to tbe jury with respect to tbe insurance money was correct in tbe light of the facts appearing on tbe record.

Of course, if tbe insurance policy bad been procured for tbe mutual or joint benefit of tbe landlord and tbe tenant, a different question would be presented, but tbis.is not our case.

King v. State Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 54 Am. Dec., 683 , and note.

After a careful examination of tbe defendant’s exceptions, we have been unable to find any error committed on tbe trial, and tbis will be certified to the Superior Court.

No error.