
    GIACOMO MANGONARO, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN KARE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
    Submitted December 9, 1912
    Decided March 3, 1913.
    On error to the Supreme Court, in which the following opinion was filed:
    Pee Curiam.
    The plaintiff below entered into a contract with the defendant for the purchase of some real estate.
    The plaintiff investigated the title and found that the defendant could not give a good title.
    The plaintiff thereupon brought this suit to recover his deposit, and the expenses incurred by him in investigating the title, which expenses were $89.50.
    The court below gave judgment for $189.50, and the defendant on this appeal questions the legality of the recovery of the expenses of investigating the title.
    This allowance of the expense of investigating the title, we think, under the decisions in this state, was erroneous. The expense of investigating the title cannot be recovered in an action such as the present one. Gerbert v. Trustees, 30 Vroom 160.
    The judgment of the court below will be reversed and a venire de novo awarded.
    For the plaintiff in error, Maximilian T. Rosenberg.
    
    For the defendant in error, Louis A. Cowley.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chtee Justice, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Congdon, Treacy, JJ. 10.

For reversal — Eone.  