Bonham v. Johnson

2 Citing cases

  1. Whitley v. Irwin

    250 Ark. 543 (Ark. 1971)   Cited 24 times

    We have held that such a stipulation is an appropriation of the insurance proceeds to the satisfaction of the mortgage indebtedness. See Bonham v. Johnson, 98 Ark. 459, 136 S.W. 191; Sharp v. Pease, 193 Ark. 352, 99 S.W.2d 588. Even so, the doctrine of subrogation comes into play in Arkansas only when one not primarily liable pays the debt.

  2. Woody v. Lytton Savings Loan Assn

    229 Cal.App.2d 641 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 9 times
    In Woody, mortgagors brought suit against a named mortgagee who had already been paid proceeds by an insurance company to cover fire loss.

    "If a policy is made payable to a mortgagee as his interest may appear, and his interest is only to the extent of his lien secured by notes, it constitutes an appropriation in advance of the policy proceeds to the satisfaction of the notes, and neither party can, without the consent of the other, disregard such application of payment, even though one of the notes was not due at the time the payment was made." (Citing in support of the text Bonham v. Johnson, 98 Ark. 459 [136 S.W. 191, 192]; Sharp v. Pease, 193 Ark. 352 [ 99 S.W.2d 588, 589-590].) [7] The fact that the Lytton loan was in arrears on interest prior to the fire and that junior encumbrancers made the necessary advances to bring and keep it current, or the fact that the holder of the third trust deed foreclosed it by sale before Lytton received the draft of the insurance company, does not affect the rights of the holder of the first lien; subordinate lien holders always take subject to all rights acquired by a prior lien holder, which rights are governed by the express terms of the written instruments — the trust deed and insurance policy.