Cole v. Kimball
Supreme Court of Vermont
Cotenant. The declaration counted on a covenant against incumbrances in a deed from the defendant to the plaintiff Florette.
Read the full summary
Cotenant. The declaration counted on a covenant against incumbrances in a deed from the defendant to the plaintiff Florette. The case was referred, and the referee reported in substance as follows: „ On August 26, 1871, the defendant by warranty deed containing the usual covenants, including a covenant against incumbrances, conveyed to the plaintiff Florette certain premises in Braintree that had been conveyed to him by Mansel Heselton and wife ; and said Florette, in payment therefor, conveyed to the defendant a farm which had before been conveyed to her by her father, Leonard Fish, and with…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
It is conceded that the plaintiffs are entitled to nominal damages ; and the only question made is, whether upon the facts found by the referee they are limited to the recovery of such damages, or are entitled to recover the amount paid to redeem the premises from the Hyde decree. This suit was brought and prosecuted by Lucia M. Fish, for her benefit, with the privity and consent of her husband, Leonard Fish, who acted for her in paying the money to redeem the premises from the Hyde decree. Florette D. Cole held the title to the premises…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. PerrySupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
3Cited by6 opinions
- Judd v. BallardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1894
- Hunter Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1995
- Security Bank v. HolmesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
- Van Dyke v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1911
- Clarke v. PriestAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.