M.R.M. Realty Co. v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtHUBBS
Citation200 N.E. 666,270 N.Y. 120
Decision Date03 March 1936
PartiesM. R. M. REALTY CO., Inc., v. TITLE GUARANTEE & TRUST CO.

270 N.Y. 120
200 N.E. 666

M. R. M. REALTY CO., Inc.,
v.
TITLE GUARANTEE & TRUST CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 3, 1936.


Action by M. R. M. Realty Company, Incorporated, against the Title Guarantee & Trust Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division, First Department (244 App.Div. 454, 280 N.Y.S. 22), which affirmed the judgment of the Special Term so far as such judgment dismissed the first and third causes of action, reversed and disallowed certain findings and conclusions of the court at Special Term, and substituted new findings and conclusions therefor, reversed the judgment in favor of plaintiff and directed that the complaint be dismissed, the plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.


[270 N.Y. 121]Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

[270 N.Y. 122]Henry S. Miller, of New York City, for appellant.

270 N.Y. 123]Henry M. Bellinger, of New York City, and C. Elmer Spedick, of Brooklyn, for respondent.
HUBBS, Judge.

The appellant entered into a contract to buy property on Tenth avenue in New York City. It applied to the respondent for an examination of title and title insurance. Prior to the closing, respondent certified in writing that the title had been examined and approved by it and that the

[200 N.E. 667

vendor could convey a good and marketable title thereto in fee, clear of all incumbrances and defects except ‘3. Restrictive Covenants, Easements and Agreements. Covenants and City Grants as to building wharf, road, &c. in L. ‘G’ p. 491 and L. 328, cp. 91.'

Annexed to the report was a typewritten sheet entitled: ‘Covenants as to Streets in Liber ‘G’ of City Grants [270 N.Y. 124]Page 491 and Liber 328 C. P. 91,' which set forth covenants taken from a grant in 1827 from the mayor of the city of New York to one Boyd in substance requiring the latter, his heirs and assigns, when and if required by the city, to ‘build, erect, make and finish’ certain wharves or streets and a bulkhead, and thereafter to ‘uphold and keep in good order and repair the whole of those parts of the said streets and wharves, and the said bulk-head which he and they have covenanted to build, erect and make, as aforesaid.’

Upon such certificate title was closed, appellant being represented on the closing by an attorney representing respondent.

Later a title policy was issued which excepted objections to title affecting said premises arising under ‘Covenants and conditions contained in Grant recorded in Book ‘G,’ City Grants, New York Comptroller's Office, at page 491, and in instrument recorded in Liber 328 of Conveyances at page 91, in the Office of the Register of the County of New York.'

The grant referred to is the so-called Boyd grant. The inclusion of the words ‘and conditions' in the title policy, though not contained in the certificate, was unnoticed, the policy was accepted, and no question arose until 3 1/2 years later, when appellant contracted to sell the premises ‘Subject also to covenants and conditions contained in Grant recorded in Book ‘G,’ City Grants, New York Comptroller's Office, at page 491, and in instrument recorded in Liber 328 of Conveyances at page 491, in the office of the Register of the County of New York, a copy of said covenants attached to title certificate of the Title Guarantee & Trust Co., was exhibited to the purchaser and read by him.'

The purchaser submitted the title to another company for examination, and it declined to insure on the ground that the title was not good. Appellant then found that [270 N.Y. 125]in addition to the covenants set forth in the certificate, the Boyd grant contained a provision that it should be null and void if there was a failure to perform the covenants on the part of the grantee, his heirs and assigns. Appellant's vendee refused to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Brooks v. Anderson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 31, 1981
    ...it was held to have good title. And in M.R.M. Realty Co. v. Title Guarantee and Trust Co., 244 App.Div. 454, 280 N.Y.S. 22, affd. 270 N.Y. 120, 200 N.E. 666, a lapse of more than 100 years between the beginning of the adverse possession and the bringing of the action did not forestall the e......
  • New York Tel. Co. v. Bd. of Educ. of Elmira
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • March 3, 1936
    ...still be required to carry out its obligations under the franchise. The plaintiff, however, is taking advantage of its rights. Hence the [200 N.E. 666]board of education could not contract away its rights. Such rights are of value, and any attempt at surrender or rescission of the contract ......
  • Miller v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • April 1, 1975
    ...above case took substantially the same position as the plaintiffs take in this case. In M.R.M. Realty Co. v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 270 N.Y. 120, 200 N.E. 666 (1936), plaintiff's title was refused by a purchaser because a hundred years earlier plaintiff's predecessor as a grantee of t......
3 cases
  • Brooks v. Anderson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 31, 1981
    ...it was held to have good title. And in M.R.M. Realty Co. v. Title Guarantee and Trust Co., 244 App.Div. 454, 280 N.Y.S. 22, affd. 270 N.Y. 120, 200 N.E. 666, a lapse of more than 100 years between the beginning of the adverse possession and the bringing of the action did not forestall the e......
  • New York Tel. Co. v. Bd. of Educ. of Elmira
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (New York)
    • March 3, 1936
    ...still be required to carry out its obligations under the franchise. The plaintiff, however, is taking advantage of its rights. Hence the [200 N.E. 666]board of education could not contract away its rights. Such rights are of value, and any attempt at surrender or rescission of the contract ......
  • Miller v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • April 1, 1975
    ...above case took substantially the same position as the plaintiffs take in this case. In M.R.M. Realty Co. v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 270 N.Y. 120, 200 N.E. 666 (1936), plaintiff's title was refused by a purchaser because a hundred years earlier plaintiff's predecessor as a grantee of t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT