Gates v. Caldwell

7 Mass. 68
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided September 15, 1810·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Curia.

The objection is to the declaration, and in a point of form only; it being contended, that as there were express covenants in the deed, it was not competent for the plaintiff to declare upon an implied covenant. We do not understand, however, that the declaration rests upon an implied covenant; but that the plaintiff has spread out at length what he apprehends to be the legal effect and operation of the express covenant; and this he has a right to do, although in this case it seems not to have been necessary.

But we do not admit that there can be no covenants in law, or implied covenants in deeds which contain express covenants. There can be none contradictory to express covenants, but there may be implied covenants, which are consistent with those expressed in the deed. The plea in bar is bad and insufficient, and judgment must be entered for the plaintiff.

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

Gates v. Caldwell, 7 Mass. 68 (Mass. 1810).

7 Mass. 68 (Gates v. Caldwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hazlett v. Powell
30 Pa. 293 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1858)
Brown v. Tomlinson
2 Greene 525 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1850)
Smith v. Babcock
22 F. Cas. 432 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1846)
Ward v. Steam Boat Little Red
7 Mo. 582 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1842)
Roebuck v. Duprey
2 Ala. 535 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1841)
Crouch v. Fowle
9 N.H. 219 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1838)
Weiser v. Weiser
5 Watts 279 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1836)
Christine ex rel. Christine v. Whitehill
16 Serg. & Rawle 98 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1827)