 MITCHELL, J. I concur in the result, but prefer to put it exclusively on the ground that, under the provisions of the policy, notice to defendant and notation on the policy of the change of ownership resulting from the foreclosure of plaintiff’s mortgage were not necessary to preserve the insurance as to plaintiff’s interest as mortgagee. The proviso that the mortgagee should notify the defendant of any change of ownership which should come to its knowledge evidently has reference only to changes resulting from the acts of the mortgagor or owner of the equity of redemption. COLLINS and CANTY, JJ., concur with MITCHELL, J. 
Buck, Canty, Collins, Mitchell
Washburn Mill Co. v. Fire Ass'n
WASHBURN MILL COMPANY v. FIRE ASSOCIATION OF PHILADELPHIA
<p>Appeal bv defendant from an order of the district court for. Hennepin county, Hicks, J., granting plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of Buck, J.</p>
<p>Insurance Policy — Foreclosure of Mortgage — Notice to Insurance Company of Nonredemption.</p> <p>Where property is insured for the benefit of the mortgagee, as its interest may appear, and the mortgage has been duly foreclosed prior to the time of such insurance, and the premium paid by the mortgagee, but the time for redemption not having expired until a period subsequent to the insurance, held, that the nonredeinption from the mortgage sale by the owner of the premises did not work an alienation of the property, so as to defeát the policy, but that an action might be maintained, in case of loss, without notice to the insurance company of such nonredemption, and a notation thereof made on the policy, notwithstanding the policy provided that the mortgagee should notify the company of any change of ownership in the property insured, and that it be so noted on the policy.</p>
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Supreme Court of Minnesota