Wilson v. Cochran
| Decision Date | 01 January 1864 |
| Citation | 48 Pa. 107 |
| Parties | Wilson versus Cochran. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Hamilton & Acheson, for plaintiff in error.
White & Slagle, for defendant in error.
Cochran conveyed land to Wilson by a deed which contained a covenant of general warranty, and then brought this suit for part of the purchase-money. Wilson put in an affidavit of defence alleging a paramount title in one Shultz to a right of way, or private road across the land — that he purchased without knowledge of the easement — and that he had been virtually evicted from part of his premises by reason of the use of the right of way.
Upon these allegations we ruled, when the case was here two years ago, that Wilson must be admitted to make his defence, and, if he proved the grounds alleged, that he would be entitled to defalk his damages against the balance of purchase-money.
But upon the trial, instead of the affidavit of defence being sustained, it was fully proved, and the jury found, that Wilson purchased with knowledge of Shultz's road, and actually walked it in company with Cochran pending the treaty of purchase.
The case as now presented, therefore, is that of a purchaser with a covenant of general warranty attempting to detain purchase-money on account of a known encumbrance or defect. We were of opinion, when the case was here before, and we still are, that the covenant of general warranty would embrace such a defect, though it be in the nature of an incorporeal hereditament, but manifestly no action could be maintained on such a covenant, and therefore purchase-money cannot be detained by virtue of it, until after eviction, and the evidence here failed to prove eviction. Indeed, there could be no eviction of that which was never purchased or possessed, and therefore, whilst a right of way successfully asserted against a vendee might be a breach of a covenant of general warranty, if the purchaser had bought without notice of it, yet the law is that he shall perform his engagements wherever his knowledge and the state of facts continue to be the same they were at the date of the purchase. In Hart v. Porter, 5 S. & R. 204, it was said that the intent that the purchaser was to run the risk of the title might be fairly inferred when he knew of the defect at the time of the purchase, and made no provision against it. To the same effect was the observation made in Furhman v. Loudon, 13 S. & R. 276, and repeated in Lighty v. Shorb, 3 Penna. R. 452,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bricker v. Kline
...App., 109 Pa. 606, 609; Gangloff v. Smaltz, 18 Pa.Super. 460, 462; Hannan v. Carroll, 277 Pa. 32, 36, 120 A. 665; Wilson v. Cochran, 48 Pa. 107; Cadwalader v. Tryon, 37 Pa. 318, 322. It was of a character that amounted to an immediate breach of the covenant and put the plaintiffs to an elec......
-
Clark v. Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Company
...collateral benefits of a bargain and equity will refuse relief: Perkins v. Gay, 3 S. & R. 327; Lighty v. Shorb, 3 P. & W. 447; Wilson v. Cochran, 48 Pa. 107; Lazarus Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co., 246 Pa. 178. The mere fact that the lessee took the lease is not sufficient of itself to show......
-
Hannan v. Carroll
...detain any portion of the purchase money as further security (Fuhrman v. Loudon, 13 S. & R. 386; Lighty v. Shorb, 3 P. & W. 447; Wilson v. Cochran, 48 Pa. 107); but these cases there is some question as to whether or not a vendee may deduct for known defects of title or encumbrances against......
-
Scott v. Albemarle Horse Show Ass'n
...knew was wholly abortive." In support of their position they cite and quote as follows from the following cases: Wilson v. Cochran, 48 Pa. 107, 112, 86 Am. Dec. 574-576: "But it has been suggested that this mode of ruling the case is virtually impairing a written covenant by parol evidence.......