Williams v. Wetherbee
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was an action of covenant broken, and several issues of fact joined therein, were tried before Essex county court, at their September term, 1826. For the second count of the declaration, see ante. vol.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of covenant broken, and several issues of fact joined therein, were tried before Essex county court, at their September term, 1826. For the second count of the declaration, see ante. vol. I, page 235. And the said James, as to the said supposed breach of cove* nant, in the said second count of the said Azarias'1 s declaration assigned, says, that he the said James ought not to be charged with the supposed breach of covenant, by virtue of the said supposed deed of the said Samuel Wetherbee to the said Daniel Howe, in the said second count of said declaration mentioned;…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was pronounced by
Hutchinson, J.
The first question presented is, whether the original deed, containing the covenant on which the present action is brought, was admissible in evidence, without other proof of its execution, than was furnished by its containing all the statute requisites of witnessing, acknowledgment and recording? The Court consider that it was admissible. The statute, p, 167, is express, that a deed thus executed “shall be valid to pass the estate, without any other act or ceremony in the law what*336ever.” Deeds, with these requisites apparent upon them,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Marston v. HobbsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Pitkin v. LeavittSupreme Court of Vermont · 1841
- Williams v. BassSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
- Saulters v. Town of VictorySupreme Court of Vermont · 1862
- Booge v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1830
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.