Frix v. Miller
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from the City Court of Gadsden, in Equity. Heard before the Hon. John H. Disque. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. In the action at law, it -would seem that the iron clad rule measuring Miller’s recovery for breach of covenant of warranty is the purchase money paid with interest.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the City Court of Gadsden, in Equity. Heard before the Hon. John H. Disque. The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion. 1. In the action at law, it -would seem that the iron clad rule measuring Miller’s recovery for breach of covenant of warranty is the purchase money paid with interest. If Charles Miller had, in good faith, endeavored to return possession to his vendor, there can be no doubt but that his recovery, both at law and in equity, would have been measured by the purchase money paid. But he owed to his vendor the equitable duty of restoring to him the…
1Opinion of the CourtHead, J.
Judson J. Frix is the complainant, and Charles Miller and Martin Miller, the respondents in this bill. The substance of the complainant’s complaint is that, on January 15, 1892, he sold and conveyed to said Charles Miller, with covenant of warranty, 149 acres of land, which he, and those under whom he claimed, had been in possession of for more than twenty years. That the chain of his title ran regularly back, through successive conveyances, to 1821, and he and his predecessors claimed and held the property as their own, and supposed they had good titles thereto. In fact, the title to a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Copeland v. McAdorySupreme Court of Alabama · 1892
3Cited by3 opinions
- Perry v. BoydSupreme Court of Alabama · 1899
- Hamilton v. FarmerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
- Galloway v. InglisMississippi Supreme Court · 1925