Case Name: Millbrook Company, Respondent, v. Edward V. Gambier and Samuel Meridith Strong, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-03-23
Citations: 176 A.D. 870
Docket Number: 
Parties: Millbrook Company, Respondent, v. Edward V. Gambier and Samuel Meridith Strong, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 176
Pages: 870–881

Head Matter:
Millbrook Company, Respondent, v. Edward V. Gambier and Samuel Meridith Strong, Appellants.
First Department,
March 23, 1917.
Contract — agreement to purchase lands with agreement ■ to pay rent during occupancy if title of vendor fails — vendee in possession liable for rent although vendor has no title.
Where a contract for the sale of land, as to which the vendor’s title as trustee was doubtful, provided that in case the title failed the vendee, who was acting for a railroad company in acquiring rights of way, should pay rent for the lands from the date of the contract until condemnation proceedings were commenced, and it developed that the vendor had no title and merely occupied the legal position of a mortgagee, the rent agreed to be paid by the vendee should be deducted from the amount of the earnest money paid, where the assignee of the vendee sues to recover the same because of the failure of title. This, because the contract of sale had a dual aspect in that it also partook of the character of a lease pending the passing of title, and hence the plaintiff became obligated for rent so long as it occupied the lands under the contract.
A tenant cannot escape the payment of rent during the period of his occupancy by alleging a defect of title in his lessor.
Shears", J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Edward V. Gambier and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of April, 1916, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the New York Special Term.
Emory JR,. Buckner, for the appellants.
Ralph Polk Buell, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
The facts upon which this appeal comes on for hearing are very carefully and correctly stated by Mr. Justice Shearn and it will not be necessary to restate them. The contract between plaintiff and the defendant Gambier presented a dual aspect. It was not only a contract for the sale of real estate, but it also partook of the character of a lease pending the passing of the title. At the time this contract was made Gambier claimed to have, and apparently had, both the record and the legal title to the property which the plaintiff desired to acquire for its right of way. That it afterwards transpired that the deed under which he claimed was only a mortgage is of no consequence. It is quite evident that plaintiff desired to take immediate possession of the property, and it is clear that it was contemplated when the contract was made that Gambler's title might prove to be defective for the agreement to pay rent was expressly conditioned upon the happening of that contingency. Plaintiff went into possession in recognition of Gambler's right to give it possession, and whatever right to possession it acquired was derived from its contract with him, and under his apparent title.
In this state of affairs plaintiff expressly agreed that " in case of failure of title " it should pay to Gambier rent at the rate of $2,400 per annum. The title did fail — the condition upon which plaintiff was to pay rent happened, and under the plain terms of the contract plaintiff became obligated to pay the rent for so long as it occupied the property under its contract with Gambier.
This obligation the plaintiff expressly recognized in its letter to Gambier of May 25, 1910, in which it admitted that it owed him the rent for eight months. How long the obligation to pay the rent would have continued under the circumstances it is unnecessary to consider for Gambier on December 31, 1909, by his attorney, undertook to declare the agreement forfeited. The plaintiff was entitled to take him at his word, and contract with the real owners as it shortly after did. I can see no grounds upon which plaintiff can escape allowing Gambier the agreed rent for the period named in view of the express language of the contract and the happening of the very contingency upon which it was agreed that rent should be paid. Furthermore it is thoroughly well settled that a tenant cannot escape the pay-. ment of rent during the period of its occupancy by alleging a defect of title in its lessor.
The judgment appealed from should be modified by deducting from the $4,000 claimed in the complaint the sum of $1,800 representing the rental at the agreed rate from March, 1909, to-December, 1909, and granting plaintiff judgment for the balance, with interest from January 1, 1910, and as so modified be affirmed, without costs in this court.
Clarke, P. J. Page and Davis, JJ., concurred; Shearn, J., dissented.