that, unless otherwise provided, fire insurance proceeds will be paid to a mortgagee as his interest may appear. The parties made no contrary agreement. The provision in the mortgage note that the insurance shall be for the “benefit” of the mortgagee is consistent with the right of the mortgagee to receive the insurance proceeds to the extent of the balance due on the mortgage debt in the event a fire loss impairs the mortgagee’s security. On the other hand, defendants contend that they should be able to use the fund in dispute in reconstructing the property. This would continue the mortgagee’s security and would allow the mortgage to run its full term in accordance with the parties’ bargain a .J.L. 342, 344-345 (Sup.Ct.1936), aff’d on opinion below, 118 N.J.L. 565 (E. & A. 1937) (<HOLDING>); Martin v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 38 N.J.L.
holding that the court erred in failing to credit fathers child support account for the entire amount that he paid for the mothers mortgage holding that the insurer was entitled to credit against the owners claim in the amount paid to the mortgagee holding that in a case in which an omitted junior mortgagee foreclosed its mortgage the junior mortgagee had the absolute right to redeem from the senior mortgagee who had purchased the property at a sale following foreclosure of the senior mortgage holding in a dispute between first and second mortgagee regarding entitlement to insurance proceeds that because both mortgages required the mortgagor to maintain insurance on the property both mortgagees had a claim to the proceeds and that the first mortgagee was entitled to recover a portion of the proceeds to the extent of the insured amount with the second mortgagee to recover the remainder holding that an insurers defenses against the mortgagor could not be asserted against the mortgagee