Musial v. Kudlik
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action to recover damages for breach of a covenant against incumbrances, brought to the Superior Court in New London County and tried to the jury before Shumway, ./.; verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs for $168, and appeal by the defendant. No error.
1Opinion of the CourtThayer, J.
It is an admitted fact upon the pleadings that on the 2d day of August, 1909, the defendant conveyed to the plaintiffs a farm on which crops were then growing; the conveyance being by a warranty deed containing the usual covenants, including one that the premises were “free from all incumbrances whatsoever.” The’plaintiffs’ action is based upon the alleged breach of the last-named covenant. As admitted by the pleadings, there was at the time an outstanding lease of the farm to one Dolbeare, who was then in possession under the lease, the term of which did not expire until the first day of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fritz v. PuseySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Clark v. FisherSupreme Court of Kansas · 1894
- Demars v. KoehlerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1898
- Bernhard v. CurtisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
3Cited by12 opinions
- Mazzotta v. BornsteinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
- Estep v. BaileyOregon Supreme Court · 1919
- LOVELAND ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC. v. Grommon Farms, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2010
- Bennett v. United Lumber & Supply Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
- Arkansas Trust Co. v. BatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.