Monogram Dev. Co. v. Natben Const. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 May 1930 |
| Parties | MONOGRAM DEVELOPMENT CO., Inc., v. NATBEN CONST. CO., Inc. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by the Monogram Development Company, Inc., against the Natben Construction Company, Inc. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (238 N. Y. S. 322, 228 App. Div. 91), reversing an order of the Special Term, which denied defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed, and order of the Special Term affirmed.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Harry G. Anderson and Louis J. Moss, both of New York City, for appellant.
Harold M. Kennedy and Meier Steinbrink, both of Brooklyn, for respondent.
The complaint demands judgment for a sum of money constituting a down payment under a contract of sale, and to impress a lien for that amount as well as for expenses.
By written agreement plaintiff contracted to purchase real property in Brooklyn and defendant to convey it by deed containing full covenants and warranty. The sale was stipulated to cover whatever right, title, and interest defendant might possess in the bed of streets in front of the premises, but there is no allegation and no proof of representation that defendant has any title therein. The premises are described by metes and bounds as beginning at the corner of two streets and running along their sides. Accordingly, these highways are excluded from the description of the property agreed to be conveyed. Van Winkle v. Van Winkle, 184 N. Y. 193, 203,77 N. E. 33;Ansorge v. Belfer, 248 N. Y. 145, 149, 161 N. E. 450. On the closing day plaintiff made tender as provided by the contract, but defendant was unable to convey free from certain rights which many years previously had been granted to third parties by one of its predecessors and which, as plaintiff argues, constitute burdens and incumbrances on the title of the realty agreed to be conveyed. These alleged incumbrances consist of the right to erect poles for lighting, to build sewers, lay water mains, and to construct elevated railroads in the streets in front of these premises.
The existence of sewers and water mains in a highway, even where the fee is in the abutting owner, does not constitute an incumbrance. Fossume v. Requa, 218 N. Y. 339, 342,113 N. E. 330. In a highway wherein no title has been conveyed to the abutting owner, neither are telephone poles nor lighting poles an incumbrance. Ansorge v. Belfer, supra. The conveyance of the right to construct an elevated railroad, even when the fee of the highway is vested in the public rather than in the abutting owner, leads to a different result. Story v. New York El. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 122, 43 Am. Rep. 146;Kane v. New York El. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 164, 180,26 N. E. 278,11 L. R. A. 640;Donahue v. Keystone Gas Co., 181 N. Y. 313, 73 N. E. 1108,70 L. R. A. 761, 106 Am. St. Rep. 549. Defendant has easements in the highway of light, air, and access, and such interest is subject to the burden existing by reason of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells & River Holding Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.
...v. Nichols, 64 N.Y. 65; Matter of City of New York, 165th St., 258 N.Y. 42, 47, 179 N.E. 253, 254; Monogram Development Co. v. Natben Construction Co., 253 N.Y. 320, 322, 171 N.E. 390. At the time of the conveyance to said James and George Stewart, Wells Avenue was a public street, and, und......
-
Hocking v. Title Ins. & Trust Co.
...appurtenant to the property conveyed is a defect in the title to the property making it non-merchantable. Monogram Development Co. v. Natben Const. Co., 253 N.Y. 320, 171 N.E. 390. Mention has been made in the foregoing discussion of the existence of at least grave doubt as to the quality o......
-
Stanley Acker Family Ltd. v. Depaulis Enters. V, Ltd.
...( see City of Albany v. State of New York, 28 N.Y.2d at 356, 321 N.Y.S.2d 877, 270 N.E.2d 705; Monogram Dev. Co. v. Natben Constr. Co., 253 N.Y. 320, 171 N.E. 390; Van Winkle v. Van Winkle, 184 N.Y. 193, 203, 77 N.E. 33; Mott v. Mott, 68 N.Y. 246; Town of Lake George v. Landry, 96 A.D.3d 12......
-
Stanley Acker Family Ltd. P'ship v. DePaulis Enters. V, Ltd.
...(see City of Albany v. State of New York, 28 N.Y.2d at 356, 321 N.Y.S.2d 877, 270 N.E.2d 705 ; Monogram Dev. Co. v. Natben Constr. Co., 253 N.Y. 320, 171 N.E. 390 ; Van Winkle v. Van Winkle, 184 N.Y. 193, 203, 77 N.E. 33 ; Mott 132 A.D.3d 660v. Mott, 68 N.Y. 246 ; Town of Lake George v. Lan......