Flanagan v. Fox — 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 498

Majority

p. 498

James Flanagan, Ex’r, App’lt, v. Patrick Fox, Resp’t.

(City Court of New York, General Term,

Filed October 20, 1893.)

Headnote

Vendor and Purchaser—Title.

It is not essential that at the time of the making of a contract for the sale-of land the title should he in the vendor’s name, if at the time of closing of the contract he is prepared to transfer a good and valid title and deed in accordance with the stipulations of the contract.

Appeal from judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint

Action to recover damages for breach of a contract for the sale-of land. The contract provided that defendant, the vendor, should give a title such as the Title Guarantee & Trust Co. will approve. The title company refusing to approve of the title as it stood, this action was brought.

J. Baldwin Hands, for app’lt; John W. Konvalinka, for resp’t.

The effect of the contract of sale of property-in question has been fully gone into and disposed by this court in. the case reported 52 St. Rep., 482 .

The question then is, were the objections made to title by Title Guarantee & Trust Company valid, and were they justified in rejecting the same ?

It is not essential that at the time of the making of the contract the title should be in the vendor’s name, if at the time of the closing of the contract he was prepared to transfer a good and valid title and deed in accordance with the stipulations of the contract.

From an examination of the evidence in this case we think the trial judge was correct in granting the motion to dismiss the complaint, and that the objections made by the Title Guarantee & Trust Company are without legal merit and form no objection in law to the 'title offered by the defendant.

Judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Ehrlich, Ch. J., and Newburger, J., concur.