Marsh v. Fish
Supreme Court of Vermont
Covenant broken. Heard upon general demurrer to the declaration, at the September term, 1892, Rutland county, Rowell, J., presiding. Demurrer sustained and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. Reasonably construed in view of the situation of the parties the covenant in the deed is against an incumbrance like a right of way.
Read the full summary
Covenant broken. Heard upon general demurrer to the declaration, at the September term, 1892, Rutland county, Rowell, J., presiding. Demurrer sustained and judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff excepts. Reasonably construed in view of the situation of the parties the covenant in the deed is against an incumbrance like a right of way. Bartholomew v. Muzzy, 61 Conn. 387; Flagg v. Fames, 40 Vt. 16; Blanchard v. Morey, 56 Vt. 170; Post v. Weil, 115 N. Y. 361; Witt v. Railway, 38 Minn. 122; Jerome v. Oatman,(o(o Mich. 668; Smithy. Pollard, 19 Vt. 272 ; Zinc Co. v. Franklinite Co., 13 N. J. Eq.…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
This is an action of covenant broken, heard below on a general demurrer, which was sustained, the declaration adjudged insufficient, and judgment for the defendants to recover their costs. From the declaration it appears that the defendant Caroline M. Fish is the widow, and the defendant William G. Fish is the sole heir at law of Winslow G. Fish, late of Clarendon, deceased, and that they executed to the plaintiff a quit-claim deed of a certain farm, owned by Winslow G. at the time of his decease, in and by which deed the defendants covenanted as follows, viz. : That in case any claim or…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cummings v. DearbornSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884
- Palmer's Exr. v. RyanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1891
3Cited by1 opinion
- Vermont Marble Co. v. EastmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917