Legal Opinion

Klimas v. Brumbach

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1921PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Siclen, J.

The plaintiff sues to impress a lien upon real property which he contracted to buy for the amount that he paid down on the contract and searching fees. The plaintiff claims the title is unmarketable because of an easement and certain encroachments of the building. The contract provided for a deed subject to “ Covenants and restrictions running with the land ” and it would seem that the exception was broad enough to cover the easement in question. Dime Savings Bank v. Butler, 167 App. Div. 257; affd., 215 N. Y. 708.

The encroachments consist of store windows, cellar doors, steps, fire escapes,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Vought v. . WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Acme Realty Co. v. SchinasiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
  3. Dime Savings Bank v. ButlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
  4. The Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn v. . ButlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  5. Celestial Realty Co. v. ChildsNew York Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mertens v. BerendsenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Gelman v. HerrmannNew York Supreme Court · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API