Miller's Administrator v. Young
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Indebitatus assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The de-fence was, that the defendant paid the debt by a deed of land in Kentucky, with general warranty, which the plaintiff received in payment.
Read the full summary
Indebitatus assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. The de-fence was, that the defendant paid the debt by a deed of land in Kentucky, with general warranty, which the plaintiff received in payment. To this the plaintiff replied that the title was bad — that the defendant never had possession of the land, and had no title. contended that the deed was void under the Virginia Act, of 6th of December, 1786, against conveying pretensed titles, which was in force in Kentucky, and did not destroy the original cause of action for goods sold ;■ and if not void under that statute, yet, as the defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court,
however,
(Thruston, J., absent,)
had made up their opinion, that the statute against pretensed titles did not vacate the deed; and that the agreement to settle the account, being executed by a deed with general warranty, which was accepted by the plaintiff, the transaction was closed and could not be disaffirmed; and that the plaintiff must resort to his warranty..
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bush v. SproatSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Stewart v. TownsendU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1890