Smith v. Jones, &C.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1895 |
| Citation | 97 Ky. 670 |
| Parties | Smith v. Jones, &c. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM BOYD CIRCUIT COURT.
THOMAS F. HARGIS FOR APPELLANT.
JNO F. HAGER FOR APPELLEE.
This is an appeal by Joseph G. Smith, from a judgment rendered against him in the Boyd Circuit Court, in favor of Catherine Jones and her husband, J. Paul Jones, on two notes of $2,000 each and interest, same being executed by appellant for the unpaid purchase money on three certain lots in the city of Ashland, bought of Jones and wife in 1890.
In this sale a deed of conveyance was made and accepted by the purchaser, retaining lien for these unpaid purchase notes, and containing the usual clause of "general warranty" of title. This means by express declaration of our statute law in Kentucky that the grantors in any such deed covenants on behalf of himself, his heirs and personal representatives, that he will forever warrant and defend "the said property unto the grantee, his heirs, personal representatives and assigns, against the claims and demands of all persons whomsoever."
And by a further statute the words "real estate" or "lands" shall be construed to mean lands, tenements and hereditaments, and all rights thereto and interests therein.
This term used by the grantor in a deed that he conveys by or with "general warranty," has been often held by this court to be in substance equivalent to the several special covenants in use under the common law, as that one is seized of the land sold, that he has good and perfect right to convey, that the land is free from incumbrances, that the grantee shall quietly enjoy possession, and that the grantor will warrant and defend the title against all claims of all persons. Butt v. Riffe, 78 Ky., 352, and Pryse v. McGuire, 81 Ky., 608, as well as in numerous other cases.
In this case the covenant of general warranty is all sufficient for the protection of Smith, in the full, complete, unrestricted use and enjoyment of the land sold, free from all incumbrances, and is sufficient to compel the grantor, before receiving the full amount of the purchase money, to pay off and discharge all outstanding, unpaid liens on the property, and this, the evidence shows, had been done before the rendition of the judgment for the purchase money; in fact, before suit brought.
Another matter complained of by Smith as being an incumbrance or restriction of the free use and enjoyment of his property bought, is that he says, in the deeds made by his remote vendors, the Kentucky Iron, Coal and Manufacturing Company (who, it seems, were the owners of all this land as early as 1854), embraced in each of their several deeds to their immediate vendees, this clause:
"Grantee accepts this deed subject to the following provision, that if he, his heirs or assigns, shall sell or permit to be sold, upon said premises, intoxicating liquors of any description, then this deed to be void and title to revert to the grantor, provided that in case of such reversion there shall be paid to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial