Case Name: Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S. v. Olyphant et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-07-18
Citations: 10 N.Y.S. 659
Docket Number: 
Parties: Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S. v. Olyphant et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 10
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U. S. v. Olyphant et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
July 18, 1890.)
Mortgages—Foreclosure—Taxable Costs.
The sum paid to a lawyers’ title insurance company by plaintiff, for searches made in action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, is not a legal disbursement, taxable as costs in the suit.
Appeal from special term, Westchester county.
Action for the foreclosure of a mortgage by the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States against Bobert M. Olyphant and others. Plaintiff’s motion, to require the county clerk of Westchester county to tax as costs the sum paid to the Lawyers’ Title Insurance Company for searches in the action, was denied. Plaintiff appeals.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ,
Henry Day, (George Waddington, of counsel,) for appellant. Martin J. Keogh, for respondent, the county clerk.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This is an appeal from an order denying the motion of the plaintiff to require the county clerk of Westchester county to allow the sum of $23.40 paid to the Lawyers' Title Insurance Company for searches in this action. The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and the clerk refused to tax the sum paid for searches because they were not official, and the special term affirmed the taxation. Ho charges can be taxed for disbursements, except such as are legal and necessary. If a lawyer hires a private individual to make a search for him, the amount paid him would not be a legal disbursement. But if the lawyer obtains an official search the case is different. This Lawyers' Title Insurance Company seems to be organized for the purpose of making searches respecting the title to real property, and holds itself out for employment by all persons, but it sustains no official position, and its searches have no official force or effect. So the money paid to such company for search stands in the same light as money paid to a private individual. We concur in the view taken at the special term, and the order appealed from should be affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.