Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 124

Cases Determined by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield Courts of Appeals of the State of Missouri Volume 124

List price: US$22.39

Currently unavailable

Add to wishlist

AbeBooks may have this title (opens in new window).

Try AbeBooks

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1907 edition. Excerpt: ...and Eng. Ency. Law, (2 Ed.), 90, 91, 141, 151; Leroy v. Beard, s How. (U. S.) 451; Mosely v. Hunter, 15 Mo. 322. This doctrine does not prevail, however, in this State, as will presently be adverted to and more particularly pointed out. Nevertheless, by essential analogy on principle, and as a sequence to the doctrine referred to in those jurisdictions where it obtains in the full measure of its applications, it has been determined upon the theory that a covenant of seizin being in the present tense and broken when made, that but one action can be sustained upon such single breach and that in event of action being brought upon it while the possession is still undisturbed and a recovery had thereon, such recovery of even nominal damages can be successfully pleaded in bar to a subsequent action on the same covenant, if substantial damages have afterwards accrued. Rawle on Covenants (5 Ed.), sec. 178; Ogden v. Ball, 40 Minn. 94-99; Donne v. Thompson, 10 Me. 170; 8 Amer. and Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), 170. It is upon the doctrine of one breach and one recovery referred to, defendant asserts the former recovery mentioned as a complete bar here. Now, if the doctrine above stated were the law in this State, it is quite clear that while the former recovery would operate as a complete bar to this second action on the covenant of seizin, it would not so operate against a recovery here upon the covenant of warranty expressed in the deed inasmuch as the covenant, like the covenant of. quiet enjoyment, differs from that of seizin in that neither the covenant of warranty nor for quiet enjoyment goes to an indefeasible title in the grantor, but, on the contrary, only goes to the extent of assuring the grantee that he shall not be disturbed in his...show more

Product details

  • Paperback
  • 189 x 246 x 14mm | 463g
  • Rarebooksclub.com
  • United States
  • English
  • black & white illustrations
  • 1236937945
  • 9781236937940