Bearce v. Jackson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Covenant broken, on a deed of the defendant’s intestate, conveying certain lands, described therein, to the plaintiff in fee, and covenanting that the grantor was lawfully seised in fee, and that he would warrant and defend the granted premises to the grantee, &c.
Read the full summary
Covenant broken, on a deed of the defendant’s intestate, conveying certain lands, described therein, to the plaintiff in fee, and covenanting that the grantor was lawfully seised in fee, and that he would warrant and defend the granted premises to the grantee, &c. At the trial of this cause, before Thatcher, J., at the last October term in this county, the counsel for the plaintiff offered in evidence a plan of the land described in the declaration, accompanied with the oath of the surveyor who took it, attesting its accuracy. The judge refused to admit the plan, because a plan, including the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was afterwards delivered by
Parsons, C. J.
We are satisfied that the judge was correct in rejecting the plan. Anciently, the land was not described in the declaration; but the plaintiff was bound to give the defendant a view. (a) The practice here has been to describe the land in the declaration, and, if necessary, to send the jury to view it. But to supersede the necessity of either of those views, a very convenient practice has arisen, — to have a plan taken under a rule of the Court by a surveyor, appointed by the Court, or agreed upon by the parties, who is sworn to…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Duvall v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- Mitchell v. WarnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
- Brandt v. FosterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
- Vancleave v. MillikenIndiana Supreme Court · 1859
- Gallison v. DowningMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.