Miller v. Bayless
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Barry Circuit Court. — How. H. G. Pepper, Judge. (1) The petition declares both upon the covenant of seizin and that of general warranty, and the breach alleged shows a violation of both covenants.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Barry Circuit Court. — How. H. G. Pepper, Judge. (1) The petition declares both upon the covenant of seizin and that of general warranty, and the breach alleged shows a violation of both covenants. Allen v. Kennedy, 91 Mo. 324. (2) Under the practice in this State now, a covenant of seizin, as well as a covenant of warranty, runs with the land; is transmissible, without words of special assignment and enures to the benefit of a subsequent grantee of the premises warranted. Langenberg v. Herr Dry Goods Cov 74 Mo. App. 12; Loring v. Groomer, 142 Mo. 1; Egan v. Martin, 71 Mo. App.…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
On February 1, 1893, John Bayless, Tliomas Allen and their wives, executed a deed to W. A.. Stilley, which purported to convey the title to certain land in Barry county, Missouri, to the grantee Stil-ley. The granting clause in the deed recites that the grantors “do by these presents grant, bargain and sell, convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part, his heirs and- assigns, the following lots, tracts and parcels of land, ’ ’ describing the same. Following the description is a habendum clause of the following tenor: “to have and to hold the premises aforesaid unto said party of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Stewart v. AndersonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Douglass v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Bush v. CooperMississippi Supreme Court · 1853
- Rowe v. HeathTexas Supreme Court · 1859
- Roebuck v. DupreySupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Central Life Assurance Society v. ImpelmansWashington Supreme Court · 1942
- Cott v. JacklinUtah Supreme Court · 1924
- Wright v. BoramMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915