Emerson v. Proprietors of a Tract of Land in Minot

1 Mass. 464
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided May 15, 1805·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

* Thacher, J.,

said he was clearly of opinion that no action could be maintained on this covenant without showing an eviction.

Sewall, J.,

said he retained the opinion which he had expressed the day before. No eviction is alleged ; the declaration is therefore wholly insufficient; and the pleadings are immaterial.

Sedgwick, J.,

said that he concurred, without a particle of doubt. This covenant has been for some time considered, here, as a personal covenant. If it be so, then it is in fact and in essence a covenant for quiet enjoyment; on which no action can be maintained till disturbance in that enjoyment. The plaintiff has shown none, and therefore has shown no cause of action.

The plaintiff had leave to discontinue.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Emerson v. Proprietors of a Tract of Land in Minot, 1 Mass. 464 (Mass. 1805).

1 Mass. 464 (Emerson v. Proprietors of a Tract of Land in Minot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gallison v. Downing
244 Mass. 33 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Jones v. Richmond
13 S.E. 414 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1891)
Rex v. Creel
22 W. Va. 373 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1883)
Funk v. Creswell
5 Iowa 62 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1857)
Blydenburgh v. Cotheal
1 Duer 176 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1852)
Fowler v. Poling
6 Barb. 165 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Davis v. Smith
5 Ga. 274 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1848)
Caldwell v. Kirkpatrick
6 Ala. 60 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1844)
Haffey's heirs v. Birchetts
11 Va. 85 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1840)
Moore & Nesbit v. Lanham
21 S.C.L. 299 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1837)
Mitchell v. Warner
5 Conn. 497 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1825)
Mackey v. Exors. of Collins
11 S.C.L. 186 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1819)