
    Herman Russ et al., App'lts, v. Eliza Stratton et al., Def’ts. The Lawyers’ Title Insurance Company, Resp’t; Louis E. Fraser et al., App'lts, v. Minnie Duncan et al., Def’ts. The Lawyers’ Title Insurance Company, Resp’t.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed April, 1894.)
    
    1. Parties—Corsequertial ihterest.
    A person, who has no interest in the subject of the action, but only in the question involved therein, is not entitled under § 452 of the Code, to be made a defendant.
    3. Same—Power oe special term.
    The special term has power to direct a person to be made a defendant, though not required to do so by said section, but should not grant the application where he has a fair opportunity to protect his interest without being made a party.
    Appeal from order making the Lawyers’ Title Insurance Company a party defendant. Action to redeem lands from the lien of a mortgage which had been foreclosed. After the action was commenced, the title insurance cbmpany, which had insured the title of certain of the defendants derived through the foreclosure sale, made application to. be made a party defendant, claiming to have an interest in the subject matter of the action and in the real property, which application was granted.
    
      1). I'L Porter, for app’lt; Parsons, Shephard & Odgen {David B. Odgen, of counsel), for resp’t.
   Dugro, J.

The respondent was not entitled to be made a defendant by virtue of § 452 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The subject of the-action is the real property, and in this the respondent has no interest. Its interest is only in the question involved in the action, and this is not the interest to which § 452 refers; a consequential interest will not suffice. Barb. Parties, 488.

The special term had power to direct the respondent to be made a defendant, though not required to do so by the Code provision. White's Bank of Buffalo v. Farthing, 101 N. Y. 344; 1 St. Rep. 15. But naturally this power ought not to have been exercised except for sufficient reason ; the papers disclpse none. There is no charge of misconduct against the insured, nor does there appear to be any reason to doubt that the respondent will have a fair opportunity to protect its interest without being a defendant. Under the circumstances the motion should not have been granted. Davies v. Fish, 47 Hun, 314; 13 St. Rep. 554.

Sedgwick, Oh. J. and G-ildersleeve, J., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  