Watson v. Boylston
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of covenant broken, brought upon a deed poll made by the defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtParsons, C. J.
In the argument the defendant’s counsel have insisted that the indentures referred to in the deed are to be considered iii the construction of the deed; and if, on the consideration of the deed and indentures taken together, it should appear that the suit mentioned in the assignment of the breach was not indemnified against, then the fourth plea is good ; because it is manifest that the suit there mentioned is not included in the covenant of indemnity contained in the indentures.
This position of the defendant’s counsel we think is correct, and in forming our opinion on the’merits of the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Mead v. StegerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1837
- Abbott v. FrazierMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Noonan v. OrtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Richardson v. PalmerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1859
- James v. AikenSupreme Court of Vermont · 1874
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.