Carleton v. Tyler
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
This was an action of covenant broken, against Simeon Tyler, Ephraim Wood and Joseph Jones, wherein the plaintiff alleged, that the defendants, by their deed dated Oct. 1, 1833, conveyed all their right, title and interest in and to certain real estate in Camden, particularly described, and in the same deed, covenanted among other things, “ that they would warrant and forever defend the premises, so conveyed as aforesaid, to him the said William Carleton, his heirs and…
Read the full summary
This was an action of covenant broken, against Simeon Tyler, Ephraim Wood and Joseph Jones, wherein the plaintiff alleged, that the defendants, by their deed dated Oct. 1, 1833, conveyed all their right, title and interest in and to certain real estate in Camden, particularly described, and in the same deed, covenanted among other things, “ that they would warrant and forever defend the premises, so conveyed as aforesaid, to him the said William Carleton, his heirs and assigns forever, against the lawful claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through, or under them, the said…
1Opinion of the Court
After advisement, the opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Weston C. J.
The terms, “ through or under us,” used in the covenant, are broad enough to embrace all lawful claims, derived from the covenantors, collectively or severally. The covenant was joint; and wc must regard it as too narrow a construction to hold, that each might have conveyed separately without a breach. We have hesitated, whether the covenant might not be taken distributively, so as to hold each severally liable, upon his own separate conveyance; but the language, expressive of a joint covenant, is too strong to justify the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dothan Nat. Bank v. HollisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1925
- Ragle v. DedmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1912
- Sauner v. DragooOhio Court of Appeals · 1928