Kimball v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 05 March 1879 |
| Citation | 25 Minn. 496 |
| Parties | Hannibal H. Kimball v. Robert R. Bryant |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
The plaintiff, as grantee of one Dewitt C. Handy, brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover damages for breach of a covenant of seizin contained in a deed from defendant to Handy, the amount claimed being $ 125 the sum paid by plaintiff to obtain a conveyance from one Lasher, of his alleged paramount title. A jury was waived and the action tried before Young, J., who found the facts as follows: The premises conveyed by defendant to Handy, and by Handy to plaintiff, originally belonged to one Halsted, who on February 16, 1859, conveyed them in fee to one Lasher, by warranty deed, which, however, was not recorded until July 23, 1873. On May 18, 1870, Halsted executed and delivered to one Jackson a deed whereby, for the expressed consideration of one dollar, he bargained, sold and quitclaimed to Jackson, in fee, all his right, title and interest in and to the premises, which deed was duly recorded on May 23, 1870. By deed executed and recorded on May 27, 1870, Jackson, for the consideration of $ 500, bargained, sold and quitclaimed, in fee, to the defendant, all his right, title and interest in and to the premises. On January 11, 1870, Halsted executed and delivered to the defendant a deed whereby, for the expressed consideration of one dollar, he granted, bargained and sold the premises to the defendant, in fee simple, which deed was duly recorded, on January 11, 1871. On July 15, 1871, the defendant, in consideration of $ 500, conveyed the premises, in fee, to Handy, with covenants of seizin, warranty, etc., the deed being duly recorded on July 15, 1871; and on May 24, 1872, Handy, in consideration of $ 1,200, conveyed the premises in fee to the plaintiff, with like covenants, the deed being recorded on May 25, 1872. On July 17, 1873, in consideration of $ 175, Lasher granted, bargained and sold the premises in fee to the plaintiff.
As conclusions of law, the court held that Halsted having conveyed his title to the premises to Lasher, in 1859, nothing passed by his quitclaim deed of May 18, 1870, to Jackson; that defendant, when he conveyed to Handy, had no title to the premises, and there was a consequent breach of the covenants of seizin and warranty in his deed to Handy; that such covenant of seizin was a continuing covenant, enuring to the benefit of plaintiff, as Handy's grantee; that plaintiff, having, prior to bringing suit, bought in the outstanding title of Lasher for $ 175, sustained damage in that sum, for which defendant is liable to him on the covenant of seizin in defendant's deed to Handy. Judgment was accordingly ordered for plaintiff, for $ 175 and interest from July 17, 1873, a new trial was denied, and the defendant appealed.
Order affirmed.
Woods & Babcock, for appellant.
Thomas Lowry, for respondent.
Action on the covenant in a conveyance by defendant and wife to Dewitt C. Handy, that the grantors were seized in fee simple of the premises conveyed. Handy subsequently conveyed, with full covenants, to plaintiff. The grantors in the first deed had no title, and it does not appear they were ever in possession. The case presents the question, Is the covenant of seizin broken at once, if at all, vesting the cause of action for its breach in the covenantee? or does it continue and run with the land, and vest in the grantee of the covenantee?
If the covenant is to be construed as it reads, there can be no question about it. It is to be assumed, of course, that parties to a deed may agree upon covenants, with respect either to the present or to the future, as they may deem best, and that the covenants which they agree upon shall fix their rights. The covenant...
To continue reading
Request your trial