Ingersoll v. Jackson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Covenant broken, on a bill of sale of a sloop and appurtenances, with the usual covenants of warranty. The breach was alleged as follows, viz.: “ Now, the plaintiff in fact avers that the said Jackson was not then the lawful owner of said sloop and appurtenances, and that he had no right and authority to sell the same to the plaintiff or his assigns; but the said sloop, with her appurtenances, at the time of making and executing said deed, had violated the embargo laws of…
Read the full summary
Covenant broken, on a bill of sale of a sloop and appurtenances, with the usual covenants of warranty. The breach was alleged as follows, viz.: “ Now, the plaintiff in fact avers that the said Jackson was not then the lawful owner of said sloop and appurtenances, and that he had no right and authority to sell the same to the plaintiff or his assigns; but the said sloop, with her appurtenances, at the time of making and executing said deed, had violated the embargo laws of the United. States, so called, and on her return to a port of the United. States, to wit, the port of Boston, in the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The declaration in this case is certainly very *435imperfect. The breach of the covenants is much too loosely alleged. No reference is made to any statute of the United States, the provisions of which had been violated by the vessel to which the covenants relate Had the objections been taken on demurrer, we must have ruled the declaration bad. But as the breach is substantially alleged, and the jury have found a verdict for the plaintiff upon it, we do not think the exceptions sufficient to warrant an arrest of the judgment.
The fact found,-that the plaintiff was himself knowing to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Jenkins v. StanleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Flanders v. StewartstownSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1867
- Sewall's Falls Bridge v. Fisk & NorcrossSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1851