Bircher v. Watkins
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT. Watkins sued Bircher on a covenant of seizen of an indefeasible estate in fee simple of a tract of land in Illinois. The covenant is contained in a deed of conveyance of said land.
Read the full summary
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT. Watkins sued Bircher on a covenant of seizen of an indefeasible estate in fee simple of a tract of land in Illinois. The covenant is contained in a deed of conveyance of said land. The deed bears date February 14,1842, and states a consideration of $600, on 17th February, 1840, and the covenant unlike most covenants of seizen is not in the present tense, but the past — that Bircher was seized, &c., on the 17th of February, 1840. The only breach assigned is that Bircher was not seized, &c., of an indefeasible estate in fee simple on the said 17th of…
1Opinion of the CourtHAPTObT, J.
The only point about which there can be any difficrrlty in this case, is the one concerning the measure of damages. The state of the pleadings was such as to dispense with the necessity producing the deed, and tiie burthen of maintaining his plea was certainly upon the defendant. In declaring upon covenants, it is generally sufficient for the pleader to negative the words of the covenant, a breach of which is alleged. This rule applies to a covenant of seizen, and of good right and title to convey. It does not apply to covenants against incumbrances. The covenant, that the grantor is “seized…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Cockrell v. ProctorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877