Legal Opinion

Blanchard v. Hoxie

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1852PublishedCited by 5 opinions

On Demurrer. Covenant broken.

1Opinion of the CourtAppleton, J.

The plaintiff has declared- on the covenants of a deed of warranty given him by the defendant, and in his declaration has set forth in one count all the covenants, and assigned a breach of each by negativing its words. To this the defendant has filed a general demurrer.

In suits on the covenants against incumbrances of warranty, and for quiet enjoyment, the breach of each of these covenants must be specifically set forth. It is not enough to negative the general words of these covenants. Marston v. Hobbs, 2 Mass. 437; Wait v. Maxwell, 4 Pick. 87. The breach of these covenants therefore is not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Marston v. HobbsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
  2. Tubbs v. Caswell & PettitCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1831
  3. Otis v. BlakeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Chestnut v. TysonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1894
  2. Hutchins v. LibbySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1953
  3. Hughes v. Singer Sewing Machine Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1953
  4. Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. ArbuthnotSupreme Court of Florida · 1927
  5. Champlin v. RyerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API