Andrews v. Rue
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On rule to show cause why verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted. This was an action of covenant brought by the plaintiffs, who sue for the use of Mary H. Andrews, the wife, assignee of Joseph Booth, deceased. The defendant, by deed dated April 19th, 1860, conveyed to Joseph Booth, a farm in Monroe township, Middlesex county, with the usual covenants, including the covenant of seizin. Joseph Booth conveyed the same land to the plaintiffj Mary IT.
Read the full summary
On rule to show cause why verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted. This was an action of covenant brought by the plaintiffs, who sue for the use of Mary H. Andrews, the wife, assignee of Joseph Booth, deceased. The defendant, by deed dated April 19th, 1860, conveyed to Joseph Booth, a farm in Monroe township, Middlesex county, with the usual covenants, including the covenant of seizin. Joseph Booth conveyed the same land to the plaintiffj Mary IT. Andrews, by deed dated February 18th, 1862. By an assignment in writing, not under seal, bearing date June 27th, 1867, Joseph Booth…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Scudder, J.
The breach charged in the plaintiffs’ declaration is, that the farm contained only one hundred and seventy-one acres, whereas there should be, by the terms of the deed, one hundred and eighty acres, strict measure. What covenant has been broken? The first count charges a breach of the covenant of seizin. The second count, that an express covenant that the tract of land conveyed con*404tained in quantity one hundred and eighty acres, has been broken.
The covenants are all found after the habendum clause, in the usual form, without any reference to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Powell v. ClarkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Roat v. PuffNew York Supreme Court · 1848
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. SandlassDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1940