Flanagan v. Fox

5 Misc. 589, 25 N.Y.S. 514, 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 498
City of New York Municipal Court·Decided October 15, 1893·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

McCarthy, J.

The effect of the contract of sale of. property in question has been fully gone into and disposed of by this court in the case reported in 3 Misc. Rep. 365. The question then is, were the objections made to title by Title Guarantee and 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 and 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.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Flanagan v. Fox, 5 Misc. 589, 25 N.Y.S. 514, 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 498 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

5 Misc. 589 (Flanagan v. Fox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schechinger v. Gault
1913 OK 118 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)
Hazleton v. Le Duc
10 App. D.C. 379 (D.C. Circuit, 1897)