Deschenes v. Tallman
Unknown (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A deed conveying title to real property is valid and effective, even if the owner was compelled to execute it by an order from a foreign court. The source of title is the owner's conveyance, not the foreign court's judgment.
Facts:
- Miller & Lockwell, Limited, a Canadian corporation, owned land in New York City.
- In 1911, a court in Quebec, Canada, declared the corporation insolvent and appointed two liquidators to sell its assets.
- The liquidators conveyed the New York land to the plaintiffs.
- In April 1925, the plaintiffs sold the land to defendant Francis Tallman, providing a covenant of seisin, which is a promise that they held valid title.
- After the sale to Tallman, the plaintiffs procured a quitclaim deed from the original Canadian corporation, Miller & Lockwell, Limited, directly to Tallman in December 1926.
- This second deed, referred to as a confirmatory deed, stated it was executed at the request of the liquidators for the purpose of winding up the corporation's affairs.
- Tallman subsequently defaulted on the purchase-money mortgage, arguing the title was defective because it originated from foreign liquidators.
- The defendants accepted the confirmatory deed from the corporation before filing their counterclaim.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs initiated an action in the New York Special Term (trial court) to foreclose on a purchase-money mortgage against defendant Francis Tallman.
- Tallman filed a counterclaim for breach of the covenant of seisin, seeking cancellation of the mortgage and damages.
- The Special Term ruled in favor of the defendant on the counterclaim.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York (intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the order of the Special Term.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a deed conveying title to real property in New York, executed by the property owner under compulsion of a foreign court's decree, validly transfer title and thus satisfy a covenant of seisin?
Opinions:
Majority - Cardozo, Ch. J.
Yes, a deed executed by the owner of real property validly transfers title, even if the owner acted under compulsion from a foreign court's order. The court distinguished between a foreign judgment acting directly on the property (in rem), which is ineffective, and a judgment acting on the person of the owner (in personam), which can compel a valid conveyance. A foreign court's decree alone cannot transfer title to New York land. However, when the owner executes a deed pursuant to that decree, the deed itself becomes the valid source of title. The court found that the confirmatory deed from the Canadian corporation itself, even if compelled, was sufficient to pass title to Tallman, thereby curing any potential defect from the liquidators' initial deed. Any remaining claims by creditors would be, at most, an encumbrance on the title, not a failure of seisin (ownership).
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial principle in conflicts of law regarding real property. It affirms that while a state retains absolute sovereignty over land within its borders (the res), its courts will recognize the validity of a conveyance executed by the owner, even under compulsion from a foreign court. This decision draws a clear line between an invalid foreign decree attempting to transfer title directly and a valid deed resulting from a foreign decree that compels the owner to act. This provides a functional mechanism for enforcing foreign judgments related to property without violating principles of territorial jurisdiction, impacting future cases involving international insolvency and property disputes.
