8. Herman v. Katz, 101 Tenn. 118, 47 S. W. Rep. 86, 41 L. R. A. 700.

9. Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Bartlett, 91 Va. 305, 21 S. E. Rep. 476, 24 Ins. L. J. 685.

10. Small v. Westchester Ins. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 789, 22 Ins. L. J. 660.

11. Collings v. American Central Ins. Co., 70 Mo. App. 14. 12. Shearman v. Niagara Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 526.

13. Bryan v. Peabody Ins. Co., 8 W. Va. 605.

14. Etna Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 16 B. Mon. 242 (Ky.).

15. Orrell v. Hampden Ins. Co., 13 Gray, 431 (Mass.).

16. Boston & Salem Ice Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 12 Allen, 381 (Mass.). And see Pitney v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 61 Barb. 335, aff'd, 65 N. Y. 6.

17. Savage v. Long Island Ins. Co., 43 How. 462 (N. Y.). 18. Kyte v. Commercial Union Assur. Co., 149 Mass. 116. 19. Bryan v. Traders' Ins. Co., 145 Mass. 389, 14 N. E. Rep. 454. And see Schloss v. Westchester Ins. Co.,

37 So. Rep. 701. Also Rules 26, 42.

20. Green v. Homestead Ins. Co., 82 N. Y. 517.

21. Washington Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 17 Ohio St. 432.

22. Keith v. Globe Ins. Co., 52 Ill. 518.

Ala.

23. Hoose v. Prescott Ins. Co., 84 Mich. 309, 47 N. W. Rep. 587, 20 Ins. L. J. 506.

24. Clifton Coal Co. v. Scottish Union & Nat. Ins. Co., 102 Iowa, 300, 71 N. W. Rep. 433, 26 Ins. L. J. 1007.

3. Duty of assignee to procure written consent of the

RULE 8. Loss made payable to assignee - Must be evidence of knowledge and intent - Effect of making loss payable to third party - Sale of property does not include policy.

9. An assignment of the policy and sale or transfer of the property are distinct and independent - Both must be consented to.

10. While both assignment of policy and transfer of property must be consented to, immaterial as to order in time.

11. Effect of company's consent to assignment of policy. 12. Assignee must have insurable interest.

13. Assignee of policy takes it subject to conditions.

14. Assignment with consent of company to purchaser of property-Effect.

15. Assignment may be made conditional.

16. One of several insured may assign his interest.
17. Effect of general assignment for benefit of creditors.
18. Effect of adjudication in bankruptcy.

19. Rule as to statement of interest inapplicable to assign-
ment of policy.

20. Assignor of policy no power to impair validity of policy.

21. Insured cannot acquire claim under void policy by assignment from mortgagee.

22. Assignment as between partners.

23. Assignment as security or collateral.

24. Right of assignment.

25. Effect of assignment as security - Lien.

26. When assigned as security subject to violation of conditions by assignor.

27. Assignment by mortgagee.

28. Assignment after loss.

29. Effect of assignment after loss to a trustee.

30. Assignment after loss induced by false representation. 31. Assignment after fire includes right to reformation.

RULE 1.

As Imposed by Contract.

This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void, if this policy be assigned before a loss.

This rule is imposed by above terms in the standard form of policy prescribed in:

The standard form of policy prescribed in Michigan is the same, except, there is added:

"Provided a loss shall occur on the property insured while such breach of condition continues, or such breach of condition is the primary or contributory cause of the loss."

The standard form of policy prescribed in

provides:

Maine

Massachusetts,

"This policy shall be void if without the assent in writing or in print of the company, this policy shall be assigned.

The standard form of policy prescribed in Minnesota provides that:

"This policy shall be void if without the assent of the company, this policy shall be assigned."

The standard form of policy prescribed in New Hampshire provides:

"This policy shall be void and inoperative during the exist ence or continuance of the acts or conditions of things stipulated against, as follows: * if, without the assent in writing or in print of the company, this policy shall be assigned."

* *

The standard form of policy prescribed in South Dakota provides:

"This policy shall be void if this policy be assigned before a loss without the assent of the insurer."

In the States where no standard form is prescribed, and other than those above named, the New York standard form is in general use.

*See note to "Concealment," Rule 1, page 2.

Vol. 2-17

RULE 2.

Condition Valid and Reasonable - Violation Voids Policy Written Consent May be on Separate Paper to be Attached. An assignment of the policy without written consent of the insurance company as required by its terms renders it void;1 and the condition requiring such consent is construed by the courts as a valid and reasonable requirement.2 Consent may be given in writing on a separate piece of paper, attached, or to be attached, to the policy.3

Me.

1. Waterhouse v. Gloucester Ins. Co., 69 Me. 409; Lyford v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 58 Atl. Rep. 916; Jecko v. St. Louis F. & M. Ins. Co., 7 Mo. App. 308; Cascade F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Journal Pub. Co., 1 Wash. 452, 25 Pac. Rep. 331, 20 Ins. L. J. 395; Miles Lamp Chimney Co. v. Erie Ins. Ind. 73 N. E. Rep. 107; New v. German Ins.

Co., Co., Ind. 31 N. E. Rep. 475, 21 Ins. L. J. 754; Hall v. Continental Ins. Co., 84 S. W. Rep. 519 (Ky.). And see Hooper v. Hudson River Ins. Co., 15 Barb. 413, aff'd, 17 N. Y. 424; Lett v. Guardian Ins. Co., 125 N. Y. 82, 25 N. E. Rep. 1088, 20 Ins. L. J. 176; Smith v. Saratoga Ins. Co., 1 Hill, 497, aff'd, 3 Hill, 508 (N. Y.); Garland v. Insurance Co. N. A., 9 Bradw. 571 (Ill.); Grant v. Eliot Ins. Co., 75 Me. 196.

2. Biggs v. North Carolina Home Ins. Co., 88 N. C. 141, 13 Ins. L. J. 302; Spare v. Home Ins. Co., 19 Fed. Rep. 14; Stolle v. Etna Ins. Co., 10 W. Va. 546.

3. Pennsylvania Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 44 Pa. St. 89.

As to whether company's agent can orally consent to an assignment of the policy, the courts do not agree. That he may so consent see Home Ins. Co. v. Gaddis, Ky. 10 Ins. L. J. 774. That he cannot, see Walsh v. Hartford Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 5.

And see Vol. 1, Fire Insurance as a Valid Contract, " Waiver," and this volume, chapter on "Agents."

Under the Iowa statute the assignment itself is valid, notwithstanding condition prohibiting it, but is subject to defenses. Mershon v. National Ins. Co., 34 Iowa, 87, citing McClain's Annot. R. S. 1888, § 3262, now section 3046, Annot. Code of Iowa, 1897, reading as follows:

"S3046. When assignment prohibited. When by the terms of an instrument its assignment is prohibited, an assignment

thereof shall nevertheless be valid, but the maker may avail himself of any defense or counterclaim against the assignee which he may have against any assignor thereof before notice of such assignment is given to him in writing."

RULE 3.

Duty of Assignee to Procure Written Consent of the Company Estoppel.

An assignee of the policy upon or after the transfer of the title to the property insured acquires no rights by a mere assignment of the policy, and cannot rely upon a verbal statement or promise of the agent of the insurance company that its consent would be indorsed upon the policy;' though the insurance company may be estopped by a statement of its officers that indorsement of consent on the policy is not necessary.2

1. New v. German Ins. Co.,

Ind. 31 N. E. Rep. 475,

21 Ins. L. J. 754; Shuggart v. Lycoming Ins. Co., 55 Cal. 408. 2. Stolle v. Ætna Ins. Co., 10 W. Va. 546. And see Vol. 1, Fire Insurance as a Valid Contract, and "Agents," this volume.

RULE 4.

Effect of Company's Consent to Assignment

66

Waiver "

Waiver.

The company's consent to an assignment of the policy operates as a waiver of an objection that the assignor had no interest to assign;1 but a naked consent to a transfer of the property does not operate as a waiver of a consent to assignment of the policy; to be effective as a new contract of insurance with the assignee consent must be given with knowledge that the intent was to transfer the insurance as well as the property;2 the company's consent to an assign