Morse v. Shattuck
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Covenant broken. The plaintiff alleged in his declaration that the defendant, by deed dated January 6, 1816, conveyed to the plaintiff sundry lots of land in Lincoln, in this county, and covenanted that be at the time of making the deed was seized in fee, when in fact he was not so seized.
Read the full summary
Covenant broken. The plaintiff alleged in his declaration that the defendant, by deed dated January 6, 1816, conveyed to the plaintiff sundry lots of land in Lincoln, in this county, and covenanted that be at the time of making the deed was seized in fee, when in fact he was not so seized. The cause was tried here at May term, 1827, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff; and the question saved for the opinion of the court was, what damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover, under the following circumstances. The consideration expressed in the deed was 0900, but it being submitted to…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.
It seems to be well settled as a general rule, that in a court of law when a consideration of money is expressed to have been paid in a deed made for the purpose of conveying land, the law will permit no averment to the contrary. Moor, 569, Fisher v. Smith; Shep. Touch. 223; Phillips Ev. 424.
It has been held in some cases, that, if a particular consideration be expressed in a deed, no other consideration can be averred. 2 P. Will. 203, Clarkson v. Hanway; 1, Johnson, 139, Schemerhorn v. Vanderheyden; 3, do, 506, Hawes v. Barker; 2 W. Bl. 1249; 7, Johnson 341, Maigley v. Hauer; 2 Coke R. 76.
In…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Wilkinson v. ScottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
3Cited by7 opinions
- Willson v. WillsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852
- Barns v. LearnedSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1830
- Kimball v. FennerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Hall v. HallSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1835
- Horn v. ThompsonSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1855
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.