Schurger v. Moorman
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, in and for the County of Twin Falls. Hon. Edward A. Walters, Judge. Action for. specific performance of contract. Judgment for the defendant and plaintiff appealed. As a general rule, the covenant against encumbrance is broken by any outstanding easement which diminishes the value of the land conveyed, nor will the knowledge by the grantee of the existence of the easement make any difference.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, in and for the County of Twin Falls. Hon. Edward A. Walters, Judge. Action for. specific performance of contract. Judgment for the defendant and plaintiff appealed. As a general rule, the covenant against encumbrance is broken by any outstanding easement which diminishes the value of the land conveyed, nor will the knowledge by the grantee of the existence of the easement make any difference. (Ensign v. Colt, 75 Conn. Ill, 52 Atl. 829, 946; Weiss v. Binnian, 178 111. 241, 52 N. E. 969 (affirming 78 111. App. 292); Teague v.…
1Opinion of the CourtAilshie, Presiding J.
This action was instituted for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. Judgment was entered for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.
About the 3d day of September, 1907, the respondent, D. B. Moorman entered into a contract in writing with Harry Ball *101and Frank T. Mitchell, wherein and whereby he contracted and agreed to sell and convey to the second parties or their assigns by good and sufficient deed a certain tract of land upon the payment of certain stipulated instalments. It was also stipulated and agreed in the contract that Moorman should convey to the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Huyck v. . AndrewsNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Kutz v. McCuneWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
- Whitbeck v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Memmert v. McKeenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886
- Desvergers v. WillisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1876
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Wood River Power Co. v. ArkooshIdaho Supreme Court · 1923
- Newmyer v. RoushIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Bozdech v. Montana Ranches Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1923
- Hansen v. Rainbow Mining & Milling Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1932
- Sandum v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.