| Ark. | Nov 17, 1900
(after stating the facts). There is no doubt that Roesch, Ratcliffe, and Hanger each had an insurable interest in the property leased by Roesch from Ratcliffe and Hanger. It appears that each, on his own account and for his own benefit, took out a policy of insurance on the property, and that each paid the premiums on his policy. Hanger’s policy was for $2,750, Rateliffe’s for $1,250, and Roesch’s for $3,000. It appears from Roesch’s testimony that it cost him $1,800 to repair the buildings, and it seems evident that his policy of insurance was ample to cover his loss, and, if he failed to make the insurance company pay the amount of his loss, we cannot well understand how he could hold others bound to do it. Roesch says Hanger and Rat-cliffe agreed to pay him enough of the insurance received by them to cover his loss, with that received by Roesch, when the repairs on the building were completed; but Hanger denies this. Sidney J. Johnson, the plaintiff, as trustee, was the assignee of Hanger’s interest in the policy of insurance held by him. He testifies that a short time after the assignment to him he notified Roesch of the assignment, and that any payment made by him to Hanger would be at his peril, and that Roesch never complained to him that Hanger was indebted to him on account of insurance until a short time before the institution of this suit. Roesch says he did not know the lessors had insurance on the building until the fire.
We think there is evidence to sustain the verdict, and that there was no error in the instruction given the jury by the court, as follows: “The jury are instructed that Hred Hanger had the right to insure the premises in question for his own benefit, and if he did so at his own expense, and without any agreement with said defendant Roesch that' he, the said Roesch, should share in the benefits thereof, then the said Roesch can claim nothing by reason of any money which Rréd Hanger received on account of such insurance, and the verdict should be for the plaintiff for the amount of rent from November 1, 1897, to October 1, 1898.” The judgment is affirmed.