Kernochan v. . the New-York Bowery Fire Insurance Company.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the insurer waived any objection to notices and proofs not in the name of the insured, that parol evidence of the agreement between the mortgagee and mortgagor was admissible and did not violate the parol evidence rule, and that the insurance covered the property, not the mortgage debt, so the insurer had no subrogation right to the mortgage. Justice Roosevelt concurred, emphasizing the practical importance of the issues.