Seccombe

Seccombe v. Glens Falls Insurance

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 704·45 Cal. App. 611·188 P. 305
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 1920Civ. No. 2698.California1,423 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

Upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the court sustained an objection to the introduction of any evidence thereunder and gave judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

The action is based upon a policy of fire insurance issued to May Prutsman upon property of which she was the owner and upon which she had executed a deed of trust in favor of plaintiff to secure a promissory note executed by her to him, which policy contained a provision for his benefit as mortgagee. The policy, clause A, contains a statement that, “subject to all the conditions of this policy, loss, if any, on building, payable to' A. H. Seccombe (who holds trust dee*d). Mortgage clause attached.” The mortgage clause so referred to reads as follows: “Union Mortgage Clause. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island standard mortgage clause with full contribution. Loss or damage, if any, under this policy on building only, shall be payable to A. H. Seccombe (who holds trust deed) . . . as first mortgagee (or trustee), as interest may appear, and this insurance, as to the interest of the ■ mortgagee (or trustee), only, therein, shall…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.