mortgage clause in Iowa

1940See Johnson v. Northern Minnesota Land & Investment Company, 168 Iowa 340 [ 150 N. W. 596 ]; Dunlop v. Avery, 89 N. Y. 592 .” It will be noted that the above pronouncement was made in reliance upon our holding in the case of Johnson v. Northern Minnesota Land & Investment Co., 168 Iowa 340, 344 , 150 N. W. 596 , 598, wherein we state: “It seems to be settled that a mere mortgagee has no interest in a policy of insurance issued to a mortgagor upon the mortgaged property, unless such interest be created by some covenant or condition between mortgagor and mortgagee in relation thereto.

1931See Johnson v. Northern Minnesota Land & Investment Company, 168 Iowa, 340 ; Dunlop v. Avery, 89 N. Y. 592 .

1940To sustain the holding of the court in this regard, counsel for appellee cite and rely upon our statement in the case of First Trust Joint Stock Land Bank v. Duroe, 212 Iowa 795, 799 , 237 N. W. 319, 321 , to wit: “It is well settled, that, when the mortgagor is bound by the terms of the mortgage to keep the premises insured for the security of the mortgagee, as between the mortgagee and the mortgagor an equitable lien arises in favor of the mortgagee for the money received upon the policy to the extent of the mortgage indebtedness, regardless of whether or not the policy is in express terms p

1940To sustain the holding of the court in this regard, counsel for appellee cite and rely upon our statement in the case of First Trust Joint Stock Land Bank v. Duroe, 212 Iowa 795, 799 , 237 N. W. 319, 321 , to wit: “It is well settled, that, when the mortgagor is bound by the terms of the mortgage to keep the premises insured for the security of the mortgagee, as between the mortgagee and the mortgagor an equitable lien arises in favor of the mortgagee for the money received upon the policy to the extent of the mortgage indebtedness, regardless of whether or not the policy is in express terms p

1938Eq. 607, 124 A. 56 , the woman who executed the new mortgage to bar dower was not actually the wife of the mortgagor.

1938Assn., 222 Iowa 964, 965 , 270 N. W. 398, 399 , Mr. Justice Mitchell gives quotations from various jurisdictions, 'wherein this standard mortgage clause has been construed, and from a reading thereof it will be readily ascertained that this clause has been uniformly construed to constitute an independent and new contract between the insurer and the mortgagee, which removes the mortgagee beyond the control or effect of any act or neglect of the owner of the property.

1938Assn., 222 Iowa 964, 965 , 270 N. W. 398, 399 , Mr. Justice Mitchell gives quotations from various jurisdictions, 'wherein this standard mortgage clause has been construed, and from a reading thereof it will be readily ascertained that this clause has been uniformly construed to constitute an independent and new contract between the insurer and the mortgagee, which removes the mortgagee beyond the control or effect of any act or neglect of the owner of the property.

1936In 2 Cooley’s Briefs on Insurance, 2d Edition, page 1269, we find the following: ‘ ‘ The insertion in the policy of what is commonly known as the ‘Union Mortgage Clause’ providing that the insurance as to the interest of the mortgagee shall not be invalidated by acts of the mortgagor and that in case payment is made to the mortgagee under such clause, when without it no claim would have *967 existed, the Company shall be subrogated to the mortgagee, creates a separate and distinct insurance of interest of the mortgagee.” (Citing Hastings v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company, 73 N. Y. 141 .) W

1931To the same effect see Power & Irrigation Company of Clear Lake v. Bank of Woodland, 226 Fed. 698 ; Pioneer Coal Co. v. Asher, 276 S. W.

1930In Corn Belt Trust & Savings Bank v. May, 197 Iowa 54 , this court said: “The authorities hold that the agreement that future advances shall be secured need not even be reduced to writing, but may be shown by parol evidence. * * * It seems to be well settled that a mortgage to secure future advances, even though it does not disclose such purpose on its face, is valid between the parties, or as against any subsequent incumbrancer not prejudiced thereby.” In Turnis v. Ballou, 201 Iowa 468 , a similar mortgage clause was under consideration.

1930In Corn Belt Trust & Savings Bank v. May, 197 Iowa 54 , this court said: “The authorities hold that the agreement that future advances shall be secured need not even be reduced to writing, but may be shown by parol evidence. * * * It seems to be well settled that a mortgage to secure future advances, even though it does not disclose such purpose on its face, is valid between the parties, or as against any subsequent incumbrancer not prejudiced thereby.” In Turnis v. Ballou, 201 Iowa 468 , a similar mortgage clause was under consideration.

1927In Barrett v. Fisch, 76 Iowa 553 , the defendant set up a mortgage in defense to plaintiff’s claim in replevin of a horse.

1924Co., 161 N. C. 151 ( 76 S. E. 869 ). .The mortgage clause of the policy in question is a part of the policy, and became effective on the date it was issued.

1924Co., 161 N. C. 151 ( 76 S. E. 869 ). .The mortgage clause of the policy in question is a part of the policy, and became effective on the date it was issued.

1923Taylor v. Harvey, 90 Neb. 562 ( 134 N. W. 173 ).

1923Taylor v. Harvey, 90 Neb. 562 ( 134 N. W. 173 ).

1886And a like principle was applied in Mansur v. Haughey, 60 Ind., 364 , and by this court in Lomax v. Smyth, 50 Iowa, 223 .

1886Vannice v. Bergen, supra. That rule is usually applied when lienholders who become such subsequent to the mortgage claim that, the mortgage being satisfied, their liens become superior to the title conveyed to the mortgagee.

1886And a like principle was applied in Mansur v. Haughey, 60 Ind., 364 , and by this court in Lomax v. Smyth, 50 Iowa, 223 .