Case Name: Anna M. Allen, Respondent, v. Nora P. McKeon, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-06-12
Citations: 127 A.D. 277
Docket Number: 
Parties: Anna M. Allen, Respondent, v. Nora P. McKeon, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
Anna M. Allen, Respondent, v. Nora P. McKeon, Appellant.
Second Department,
June 12, 1908.
Vendor and purchaser—requirement that title he insured — rejection of title.
Where a contract for the sale of lands provides that “ the title to be given and accepted hereunder shall be such as Lawyers Title Insurance ■ and Trust Company will approve and insure,” the vendee may reject a title which such company refuses to approve and insure, and recover the earnest money and expenses paid.. .
Appeal by the defendant, Nora P. McKeon, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of Brooklyn, in favor of the plaintiff, rendered on the 30th day of December, 1907.
Eugene N. L. Young [James R. McNally and Joseph A. Hart with him on the .brief], for the appellant.
Arthur Ofner, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Rich, J.:
The contract for the sale of the real estate described therein provided among other things: "The title to be given and accepted hereunder shall be such as Lawyers Title Insurance and Trust Company will approve and insure." It appeared upon the trial that the said company refused to approve and insure the title tendéred by defendant and this appeal is from a judgment for the plaintiff in an action brought to recover the amount paid upon the execution of the contract, together with necessary expense incurred in . the examination of the title. . '-
It is contended on the part of the defendant that the refusal of the insurance company was capricious and unreasonable, that-the title tendered was. marketable, and- that she was, able, ready and willing to give a, marketable title approved and insured by another company. -
The ease turns upon the meaning of the clause in the contract quoted. I think- the plaintiff' had- a right to insist upon a title approved as provided in the contract, and this is not in.conflict with the decision of this court in Downs v, Lehman (123 App. Div. 11), cited by the learned counsel for the. respondent. The same-question was involved in Flanagan v. Fox (6 Misc. Rep. 132), and it was there held, in - a learned and ' well-considered opinion by Mr. Justice Bischoff, that'an action in such circumstances is maintainable,
. The judgment of the Municipal Court should he affirmed, with costs. ' -
Woodward, J.enks, G-aynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
. Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed^ with costs.. -