due under this policy, then, on demand, the mortgagee shall pay the same; provided, also, that the mortgagee shall notify this company of any change of ownership or increase of hazard which shall come to his knowledge, and shall have permission for such change of ownership or increase of hazard duly indorsed on this policy; and provided, further, that every increase of hazard not permitted by the policy to the mortgagor or owner shall be paid for by the mortgagee on reasonable demand, and after demand made by the company upon and refusal by the mortgagor or owner to pay according to the established schedule of rates.”
Does the clause contain an express promise on the part of the defendant, the mortgagee, to pay the premium in case of the default of the mortgagor? It is insisted that it merely prescribes a condition, on the performance of which the mortgagee may entitle himself to the benefits of this clause. But why should this agreement be so construed as to give the mortgagee the option to avail himself of its provisions while the insurance company are to have no choice? If this was the intention of the parties, why did not the provision read as follows: “Provided, that the mortgagee, in case of the default of the mortgagor, shall have paid the premium at the time he claims the benefit of this clause.” This would have left in him an option. But the clause, as it does read, is an absolute engagement to pay the money on the default of the mortgagor— “then, on demand, the mortgagee shall pay the same.” The clause provides that no neglect or act of the mortgagor, nor shall the vacancy of the premises, invalidate the policy. If defendant’s contention is sound, this provision would be nugatory, if the mortgagor should pay the premium on time, for it is only in case of the mortgagor's default that the mortgagee can perform this condition of payment, and defendant insists that it is only on performance of such condition by him that he can have any rights under the mortgage clause. This construction would destroy its effect in many cases. It would often deprive the mortgagee of any benefit from the provision that he should not be prejudiced by any act or neglect of the mortgagor, nor by reason of the vacancy, etc., of the premises. The
