Legal Opinion

Smith v. M'Campbell

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 16, 1820PublishedCited by 8 opinions

ERROR to the Washington Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtHolman, J.

The plaintiff brought an action of covenant, setting forth in his declaration that the defendant, at Charles-town, in Clark county, by his indenture sealed, &c. granted,bargained, and sold to the plaintiff a certain lot of land in Charles-town aforesaid; and covenanted with the plaintiff, that he would warrant and forever defend the said lot from himself, his heirs, and all persons claiming under him, and also against the lawful claim or claims of all persons whatever. The breaches assigned are, that the defendant has not warranted and defended the said lot from the claim, &c. in this, that…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Duvall v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
  2. Pollard & Pickett v. DwightSupreme Court of the United States · 1808
  3. Bickford v. PageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Funk v. CreswellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857
  3. Bowman v. Franklin Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1874
  4. Jewett v. OlsenOregon Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Pomeroy v. BurnettIndiana Supreme Court · 1846

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API