60 N.H. 164 | N.H. | 1880
The deed from the plaintiff to his daughter, executed after the issuing of the policy and before the loss, conveyed the premises and was an alienation of the title. The fact that no consideration was expressed in the deed when it was executed is immaterial. A consideration was subsequently inserted with the knowledge of the plaintiff, without dissent or objection on his part, and he cannot avoid the deed on the ground of want of consideration. Farrington v. Barr,
The indorsement upon the policy, "payable to S. S. Thompson as his mortgage claim may appear," was not an assignment of the policy, nor an insurance of Thompson's interest as mortgagee, but merely a promise of the defendants to pay him such sum as should become payable to Baldwin thereon. It did not make Thompson an assignee of the policy, but merely the payee in case of loss, and the alienation of the property by Baldwin avoided the policy. Loring v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co., 8 Gray 28; Smith v. Union Ins. Co.,
Judgment for the defendants.
STANLEY, J., did not sit: the others concurred. *167