Goodel v. Bennett

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Goodel v. Bennett

22 Wis. 565

CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1868

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 22 Wis. 565 (Goodel v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodel v. Bennett, 22 Wis. 565 (Wis. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Dixon, C. J.

There can be no question but that the title, whatever it was, of John FT.- Chicks, deceased, passed to the United States under the treaty of February 5, 1856. He was a party to the treaty, and signed and sealed the same. Treaty with the Stockbridges and Maumees, 11 U. S. Statutes at Large, 664, (Art. 1), and 668. Chicks having, then, no title at the time of his decease, the plaintiff took nothing by his deed from the administrator of Chicks’ estate. The plaintiff was properly nonsuited on this ground. The fact that Chicks, at the time of the treaty, claimed title through divers mesne conveyances from the defendant in this action, who had conveyed the land with covenants of seizin and warranty, and the further fact that the defendant now again claims title to the land through the United States under a patent issued since the making of the treaty, do not affect the question. They constitute no ground of estoppel against the defendant. The covenants ran with the land to the United States, when it was ceded by Chicks under the treaty, and have thence passed by conveyance of it back to the defendant, and are thus extinguished. The plaintiff) [568]*568by Raving taken a conveyance from an intermediate grantee after suck grantee bad parted with his title, is in no condition to insist upon an estoppel, or that the subsequently acquired title of the defendant enures to his benefit.

By the Court, — Judgment affirmed.

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

Dixon, C. J.

There can be no question but that the title, whatever it was, of John FT.- Chicks, deceased, passed to the United States under the treaty of February 5, 1856. He was a party to the treaty, and signed and sealed the same. Treaty with the Stockbridges and Maumees, 11 U. S. Statutes at Large, 664, (Art. 1), and 668. Chicks having, then, no title at the time of his decease, the plaintiff took nothing by his deed from the administrator of Chicks’ estate. The plaintiff was properly nonsuited on this ground. The fact that Chicks, at the time of the treaty, claimed title through divers mesne conveyances from the defendant in this action, who had conveyed the land with covenants of seizin and warranty, and the further fact that the defendant now again claims title to the land through the United States under a patent issued since the making of the treaty, do not affect the question. They constitute no ground of estoppel against the defendant. The covenants ran with the land to the United States, when it was ceded by Chicks under the treaty, and have thence passed by conveyance of it back to the defendant, and are thus extinguished. The plaintiff) [568]*568by Raving taken a conveyance from an intermediate grantee after suck grantee bad parted with his title, is in no condition to insist upon an estoppel, or that the subsequently acquired title of the defendant enures to his benefit.

By the Court, — Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Wis. 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodel-v-bennett-wis-1868.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack