New York Investors, Inc. v. Manhattan Beach Bathing Parks Corp., 176 N.E. 6 (N.Y. 1931). · Go Syfert
Search
New York Investors, Inc. v. Manhattan Beach Bathing Parks Corp., 176 N.E. 6 (N.Y. 1931). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hudson-Port Ewen Assocs., L.P. v. Chien Kuo, 165 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1991)
Treatment trajectory · 1931 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1931 1978 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
256 N.Y. at 164 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Hudson-Port Ewen Assocs., L.P. v. Chien Kuo, 165 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1991).published
    On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the record did not "disclose an unequivocal approval of the title” by the title company, and the court specifically left open the question "whether approval, if given, would have been a suffic…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
New York Investors, Inc., Appellant,
v.
Manhattan Beach Bathing Parks Corporation Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 14, 1931.
Published opinion
176 N.E. 6
1931 N.Y. LEXIS 1040
William N. Dykman, Jackson A. Dykman, Sigourney B. Olney and Jules Haberman for appellant. Clarence J. Shearn and William Harvey Smith for respondents.
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>.
Cited by 18 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The contract of sale provided that the plaintiff’s title should be approved and insured by the Title Guarantee and Trust Company before the defendant should be obligated to accept the title and pay the purchase price. The record does not disclose an unequivocal approval of the title by the Title Guarantee and Trust Company. The defendant was not, therefore, bound to accept the title tendered.

We have examined the other questions urged by the appellant but deem it unnecessary to express any opinion in regard to them in view of our conclusion that there[*165] was not such an approval of the title by the title company as to require the defendant to go on with the contract. We leave the question open whether approval, if given, would have been a sufficient answer to the objection that the title was unmarketable.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.