Title Ins. v. Bach

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Title Ins. v. Bach

90 N.Y.S. 350

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 350 (Title Ins. v. Bach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Title Ins. v. Bach, 90 N.Y.S. 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

Upon the 10th day of February, 1902, the de-

fendant conveyed to Samuel Laubheim and others certain real property in this city, the covenant in the deed being “that the said premises are free from incumbrances, except as aforesaid.” The [351]*351exception referred to consisted of two mortgages and a lease. The plaintiff herein claims to be the assignee of the grantees in said deed of the alleged cause of action set up in the complaint in this action. Asserting that at the time of the delivery of the deed to its assignors the premises were subject to a lien for certain unpaid croton water .rents amounting to $161.84, this suit was-brought to recover said amount. The answer denies the material allegations of the complaint, and specifically denies that the cause of action herein had been assigned to this plaintiff. No assignment was proven upon the trial, and, as the plaintiff’s standing in court exists by virtue of the assignment, this defect in proof requires a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

Upon the 10th day of February, 1902, the de-

fendant conveyed to Samuel Laubheim and others certain real property in this city, the covenant in the deed being “that the said premises are free from incumbrances, except as aforesaid.” The [351]*351exception referred to consisted of two mortgages and a lease. The plaintiff herein claims to be the assignee of the grantees in said deed of the alleged cause of action set up in the complaint in this action. Asserting that at the time of the delivery of the deed to its assignors the premises were subject to a lien for certain unpaid croton water .rents amounting to $161.84, this suit was-brought to recover said amount. The answer denies the material allegations of the complaint, and specifically denies that the cause of action herein had been assigned to this plaintiff. No assignment was proven upon the trial, and, as the plaintiff’s standing in court exists by virtue of the assignment, this defect in proof requires a reversal of the judgment.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.Y.S. 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/title-ins-v-bach-nyappterm-1904.