Cross v. Button
Wisconsin Supreme Court
This was an action of covenant commenced in tbe County Court of Milwaukee county, to recover damages for breaches of covenants contained in a certain indenture of lease, bearing date the 23d day of January, A. D. 1846, made and executed by Ira Couch, of the first part, and Dexter Taft and William H. Spurr, of the second part, as modified by a certain supplemental agreement, made by the same parties, and bearing date the 17th day of February, A. D. 1846. The action was…
Read the full summary
This was an action of covenant commenced in tbe County Court of Milwaukee county, to recover damages for breaches of covenants contained in a certain indenture of lease, bearing date the 23d day of January, A. D. 1846, made and executed by Ira Couch, of the first part, and Dexter Taft and William H. Spurr, of the second part, as modified by a certain supplemental agreement, made by the same parties, and bearing date the 17th day of February, A. D. 1846. The action was brought by the plaintiffs in error, as assignees, under the said Couch, of the reversion of the premises demised by the said…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Ouriam.
We think that the plea in this case is bad. The liability of the defendant below is predicated upon his privity of estate, not of contract; hence the pl^ of non est factum is not responsive to the. declaration, and can be no bar to the action. The defendant’s liability to pay rent did not depend upon any contract máde by him with the plaintiffs below, but arose out of his relation as the assignee of the original lessees. It is obvious, therefore, that it was quite immaterial whether the lease upon which the plaintiffs below counted, was. or was. not the deed of the defendant below.
T…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. LoewenbachWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
- Wittman v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1881