Case Name: HEIM v. SCHWOERER et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-11-05
Citations: 100 N.Y.S. 808
Docket Number: 
Parties: HEIM v. SCHWOERER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 100
Pages: 808–811

Head Matter:
(115 App. Div. 295)
HEIM v. SCHWOERER et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 5, 1906.)
Judicial Sales—Validity—Title of Vendor.
The terms of a judicial sale provided that the premises would be sold subject to a specified mortgage, and to existing tenancies. The premises were also subject to a restrictive covenant, providing that the premises should not be used for designated trades and occupations or for any other manufacturing trade which might be in any wise injurious or offensive to the neighboring inhabitants. Held, that the restrictive cov enant constituted an incumbrance authorizing the court to relieve the purchaser at the sale from liability.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 31, Cent Dig. Judicial Sales, §§ 54, 97-101.]
Scott, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Annie Heim against Anthony Schwoerer and another. From an order of the Supreme Court (99 N. Y. Supp. 553), relieving Rudolph L. Blumenthal from liability as purchaser at a judicial sale, plaintiff "and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
Henry C. Betty, for appellants.
Charles E. Stern, for respondent.

Opinion:
HOUGHTON, J.
The order should be affirmed on the authority of Dieterlen v. Miller, 99 N. Y. Supp. 699, in which on submission of controversy, plaintiff was relieved from his agreement to purchase premises subject to a covenant less broad than that with which the premises in question are incumbered. The fair interpretation of the terms of sale, aside from the fact that it was a judicial sale, is that there were no other incumbrances upon the premises than those specifically mentioned.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur, except SCOTT, J., who dissents.