Jones v. Stanton
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, in Chancery. 1st. The agreement set up in the bill varies essentially from that given in evidence. The words “grant, bargain and sell,” under the statute of Illinois, do not amount to & general covenant of seizen of an indefeasible estate of inheritance in fee simple, absolute, but only a covenant against the personal acts of the grantor, and for quiet enjoyment.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas, in Chancery. 1st. The agreement set up in the bill varies essentially from that given in evidence. The words “grant, bargain and sell,” under the statute of Illinois, do not amount to & general covenant of seizen of an indefeasible estate of inheritance in fee simple, absolute, but only a covenant against the personal acts of the grantor, and for quiet enjoyment. See decisions under a similar-statute, 2 Binney 95; 2 Alabama, new series, 535; 3 Smedes & Marshall, 618. The rule in chancery is the same as at law in relation-to a variance betvr een the…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
In September 1841, Stanton filed in the St. Louis Circuit Court against Jones, his bill for an injunction against a judgment at law forthe sum of $408 65, debt and damages, which was recovered by Jones vs. Stanton. By a change of venue the suit was afterwards taken to the Court of Common Pleas. The bill alledged that the consideration of the note was a quarter section of land in Illinois, sold by Jones to Stanton for the sum of $1000. That the amount recovered was the balance of principal and interest due on the said note. It is alledged that Jones is a non-resident of the State, and that his…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Hickman v. LinkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- Allen v. DegroodtSupreme Court of Missouri · 1891
- Fkanklin Mining Co. v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Colorado · 1896
- McPheeters v. WrightIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Becker v. BeckerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1914
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.