of
THIS was an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, ordering a new trial on the ground that the verdict for the appellants (defendants below) was against the weight of evidence.
By the judgments in the court below, published in the printed case, it appeared that the judges, in order- Gn. ing a new trial, considered that the evidence greatly EEKA preponderated in favor of the respondents (plaintiffs below) and that the jury had given a sympathetic verdict, the respondents being a foreign firm doing s business at Montreal.
A. F. McIntyre, for the appellants, stated the facts of the case and the nature of the appeal.
Dunlop on behalf of the respondents was not called on RITCHIE, C. J.
We must not encourage appeals to this court in such cases, and we wish it understood, that where a court below has ordered a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, this court will not interfere.
This appeal must be dismissed.
C.J.-This case is distinguishable from Eureka Woollen Mills Co. v. Moss.
We will hear the appeal.]
When Strong gave the bill of sale to Jenkins he was in possession of the goods, and his discharge by the court made the mortgage of the eighth of March valid. On the fifth of August a new premium was paid, and I contend that each payment of premium is a new contract.
It was not intended to make a change in the policy, but to continue a binding- contract of insurance. I am going to contend that a party need not have an interest in the property at the time of effecting the insurance; it is sufficient if he has such interest at the time of the loss.
Tremaine for the respondents was not called on. C.J.:- I do not think this is an arguable case at all. I think that before a man can recover on a policy of insurance he must have an insurable interest in the property when he effects the insurance. The renewal was merely a continuance of the original insurance and not a new policy.
This appeal must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed with costs.