Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-03-05
Citations: 191 A.D. 165
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 191
Pages: 165–170

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company, Appellant.
Second Department,
March 5, 1920.
Crimes — practice of law by corporation—■ Penal Law, section 280 — contract of sale, deed and mortgage of realty drawn by title guarantee company.
An incorporated title guarantee and trust company cannot be convicted of • the crime of practicing law in violation of section 280 of the Penal Law by reason of the fact that it drew a contract of sale, deed and mortgage of real estate as part of the examination and the insuring of property to be covered by one of its title policies.
Kelly, J., dissents, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, Title Guarantee and Trust Company, from two judgments of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, entered on the 5th day of July, 1918, convicting the defendant of the crime of practicing law in violation of section 280 of the Penal Law.
The information in cause No. 1 was for legal services and advice in connection with the drawing and attending to the execution of three instruments, namely, a deed, a bond and mortgage of real estate. The information in cause No. 2 was for like services in connection with the drawing of a contract in writing for the sale and transfer of such real property. The court pronounced defendant guilty and fined defendant $1,000 in each case.
The separate appeals were combined here and heard as a single cause in this court.
Charles E. Hughes [Isidor J. Kresel and Lester H. Washburn with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Harry G. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney [Harry E. Lewis, District Attorney, and Ralph E. Hemstreet, Assistant District Attorney, with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Putnam, J.:
This contract of sale, deed and mortgage were drawn as part of the examination and insuring property to be covered by defendant's title policies. Such a contract of sale which fixes the terms of the deed can hardly be held to be outside the scope of defendant's chartered powers. Acts incidental to its business, and especially if necessary to place in insurable condition the title to be guaranteed, are held to be lawful for this defendant. (People v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 227 N. Y. 366.) Before starting to search, certify and insure title to land, defendant must reduce to writing not only the physical •description of the property, with a minute of the chain of transfer or devolution from the sovereign of the soil, but also the terms of any easements, appurtenances, reservations, limitations and conditions affecting the offered interest. The mortgage back to the vendor follows as essential to the purchase. Insurance of title — no longer a matter of individual service, after having been originally by corporations under special charters — has become so common that it may now be organized under the Insurance Law, article 5, as amended.
It is especially recognized for urban lands. The large building investments in such lots in turn demand the ampler protection that may be furnished by corporate insurers. Necessarily the insurer must supervise the instruments of transfer. Otherwise the title would not be in an insurable condition.
Hence I am of opinion these instruments of title constituted no violation, and that both the informations should be dismissed.
Jenks, P. J., Blackmar and Jaycox, JJ., concur; Kelly, J., reads for affirmance.