Case Name: TAX LIEN CO. OF NEW YORK v. SCHULTZE et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-04-03
Citations: 146 N.Y.S. 902
Docket Number: 
Parties: TAX LIEN CO. OF NEW YORK v. SCHULTZE et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 146
Pages: 902–906

Head Matter:
TAX LIEN CO. OF NEW YORK v. SCHULTZE et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
April 3, 1914.)
Taxation (§ 685 )—Foreclosure of Lien—Relief from Bid—BIarketable Title.
It was error to grant a motion of the purchaser at the sale on foreclosure of a tax lien, to be relieved from his bid on the ground that the title was not marketable because the premises were affected by easements of light; air, and access, where every owner of such an easement was made a party to the foreclosure proceedings; such owners being bound by the judgment and their interest being vested in the purchaser by the conveyance, under the express provisions of Charter of City of New York, § 1039 (Laws 1908, c. 490).
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 1375, 1376; Dec. Dig. § 685. ]
Scott, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by the Tax Lien Company of New York against Catherine E. Schultze and others to foreclose a tax lien. From an order granting a motion of Welsey E, Barker, purchaser at the foreclosure sale, to be relieved of his bid, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and CLARKE, SCOTT, DOWLING, and HOTCHKISS, JJ,
August Weymann, of New York City, for appellant.
Edward Hiehling, for respondents.
For other cases see same topic & § numSek in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

Opinion:
HOTCHKISS, J.
The action was to foreclose a tax lien. The respondent was the purchaser at the sale. Having refused to take title, he made a motion to be relieved of his bid, and plaintiff moved for an order directing the purchaser to complete. The purchaser's motion to be relieved was granted, and plaintiff's cross-motion was denied.
The premises in question consist of what would be the northerly half of the bed of East 132d street where the same widened and extended between Willis avenue and Brown Place. The title was rejected on the ground that the premises were affected by easements of light, air, and access which were not cut off by the foreclosure. On the motion, an affidavit was read in behalf of the purchaser in which it was stated:
"Upon the said examination of title, it appeared that there might be easements of light, air, and access, and rights of way over said tax lot in favor of the-owners and incumbrances of the various parcels of land abutting upon the said tax lot and upon the neighboring streets and avenues. The following is a list of the various owners and incumbrances of land fronting on East 132d street and Willis avenue, together with their sources of title."
The record shows that each owner or incumbrancer enumerated in the list as stated in the affidavit was a party to the action and either defaulted or appeared but did not defend. It is clear that the mere suggestion that there may be a possibility of outstanding interests unaffected by the judgment is insufficient to show a cloud on the title. Goodwin v. Crooke, 58 App. Div. 464, 69 N. Y. Supp. 578. Jackson v. Smith, 153 App. Div. 724, 138 N. Y. Supp. 654, is not in point. In that case, it was held that the easements of certain defendants were not affected by the sale because they had not been subjected to the assessments on which the tax in question had been laid. No such question is in this case, which involves one of parties only. Every owner of an easement which the record discloses as having an interest was made a party, and hence was bound by the judgment, and whatever estate or interest they had in the property affected thereby will, by the conveyance to be made thereunder, be vested in the purchaser. Charter, § 1039 (Laws 1908, c. 490).
The order relieving the purchaser of his bid should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the order denying the motion of the plaintiff directing the purchaser to complete his purchase should likewise be reversed, and an order entered directing the purchaser so to complete.