
    Herman Russ et al., Appellants, v. Eliza Stratton et al., Defendants. The Lawyers’ Title Insurance Co., Respondent. Louis E. Fraser et al., Appellants, v. Minna Duncan et al., Defendants. The Lawyers’ Title Insurance Co., Respondent.
    (New York Superior Court—General Term,
    April, 1894.)
    A title insurance company which has insured a title derived under a sale on foreclosure has no such interest in the property as will entitle it to he made a party defendant to an action to redeem the land from the mortgage which was foreclosed.
    A motion to he made a party defendant should not he granted where the moving party has a fair opportunity to protect its interest without being a defendant.
    Appeal from order making the Lawyers’ Title Insurance Go. 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 company, 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.
    
      D. M. Porter, for appellants.
    Parsons„ Shepard & Ogden (David B. Ogden, of counsel), for respondent.
   Dugro, J.

The respondent was not entitled to be made a defendant by virtue of section 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 section 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. But naturally this power ought not to have been exercised except for sufficient reason; the papers disclose 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.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.  