Wait v. Maxwell
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
The plaintiff declares in covenant broken, for that Wilder, by deed, bargained and sold to him in fee, a parcel of land, and covenanted that he (Wilder) was seised in fee of the land, and that he had good right to convey the same, and that the same was free of all incumbrances ; whereas he was not seised in fee, nor had he good right to convey, “ nor could the plaintiff by force of said deed lawfully possess and enjoy the land free of all incumbrances according to the said…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff declares in covenant broken, for that Wilder, by deed, bargained and sold to him in fee, a parcel of land, and covenanted that he (Wilder) was seised in fee of the land, and that he had good right to convey the same, and that the same was free of all incumbrances ; whereas he was not seised in fee, nor had he good right to convey, “ nor could the plaintiff by force of said deed lawfully possess and enjoy the land free of all incumbrances according to the said Wilder’s covenant aforesaid.” The defendant pleads that Wilder “ was seised in fee of the land &c., and had good right…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was read as drawn up by
Parker C. J.
The last cause of demurrer is manifestly mistaken, for there is a direct affirmation and denial between the declaration and the plea, so that it was proper to tender an issue to the country.
And with respect to the other cause, it is clearly unsupported. If three breaches had been well assigned, no doubt the plea would be bad, as it does not answer all; but we think it clear that the breach in relation to the incumbrances is not well assigned, and therefore needed not to be noticed in the plea. A general assignment of a breach, such…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- M'Geehan v. M'LaughlinThe Superior Court of New York City · 1828
3Cited by1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. SemedoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010