Davidson v. Cox

Decision Date19 March 1880
Citation10 Neb. 150,4 N.W. 1035
PartiesDAVIDSON v. COX.
CourtNebraska Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error from Johnson county.

____ Davidson, for plaintiff.

____ Perkins, for defendant.

COBB, J.

The same question involved in this case was presented to this court in the case of Chapman v. Kimball, 7 Neb. 399, was ably argued by eminent counsel on either side, and the court, as then constituted, was undivided in its views, which were afterwards embodied in the carefully prepared opinion by the present chief justice; which opinion was also examined and concurred in by the writer, who became a member of the court after the decision in said cause had been agreed upon, but before the opinion had been filed. The court in that case say: “Where a covenant is broken at the time of the execution of the deed it does not run with the land. The obligation is merely personal, and limited to the parties to the covenant, and confers no right of action on subsequent purchasers of the estate. * * * * The contract is a present engagement that the grantor has an unencumbered title, and is not in the nature of a covenant of indemnity. The statute of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Crawford County Bank v. Baker
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 20, 1910
    ...of action ever accrued to appellee. 74 Ark. 350; 7 Ark. 132; 3 N.C. 82; 1 Met. 450; 32 Ark. 714; 113 N.W. 870; 29 So. 386; 28 N.E. 1182; 4 N.W. 1035; 48 S.W. 385. The cause of was barred. 8 Ark. 368; 42 W.Va. 753; 59 Ark. 629; 1 Ark. 313; 7 Ark. 153; 85 Ark. 589. As to the measure of damage......
  • Merchants' Nat. Bank of Clinton v. Austin
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1918
    ...Tiedeman on Real Prop. § 860.” See, also, Bull v. Beiseker, 16 N. D. 290, 113 N. W. 870, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514, and note, Davidson v. Cox, 10 Neb. 150, 4 N. W. 1035, and McConaughey v. Bennett's Executors, 50 W. Va. 172, 40 S. E. 540. In the case last cited it was held: “After breach of s......
  • Merchants' Nat. Bank of Clinton, Iowa v. Otero
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1918
    ... ... breach is generally the only person who can maintain an ... action upon the covenant.' Tiedeman on Real Prop. § ...          See, ... also, Bull v. Beiseker, 16 N.D. 290, 113 N.W. 870, ... 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 514, and note, Davidson v. Cox, ... 10 Neb. 150, 4 N.W. 1035, and McConaughey v ... Bennett's Executors, 50 W.Va. 172, 40 S.E. 540. In ... the case last cited it was held: ...          "After ... breach of such covenant it can no longer run with the land, ... nor has it any existence or virtue, save for ... ...
  • Bellamy v. Chambers
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1897
    ... ... from incumbrance.' If the taxes in question actually ... existed as a lien against the land in question at the time of ... the conveyance, the covenant was broken at that time and a ... cause of action at once accrued in favor of the covenantee ... for his damages." (Davidson v. Cox, 10 Neb ... 150, 4 N.W. 1035; Kern v. Kloke, 21 Neb. 529, 32 ... N.W. 574; Cheney v. Straube, 35 Neb. 521, 53 N.W ... 479.) Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in reference ... to time in which actions can be brought, is as follows: ... "Within five years, an action upon a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT