Grundy v. Edwards

30 Ky. 367, 7 J.J. Marsh. 367, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 103
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedMay 11, 1832
StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ky. 367 (Grundy v. Edwards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grundy v. Edwards, 30 Ky. 367, 7 J.J. Marsh. 367, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 103 (Ky. Ct. App. 1832).

Opinion

Judge Nicholas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse a judgment obtained by Grundy against Edwards in an action on a covenant for the conveyance of the moiety of a tan yard. Judgment went, by default, against Edwards.

On the enquiry as to the damages, after Grundy had read in evidence the covenant, reciting a consideration of six hundred dollars, the court permitted Edwards to prove that the property was at the time of sale of less value than six hundred dollars, and that, according to the agreement and understanding of the parties, the consideration was payable in notes of the Commonwealth’s bank, then at a great depreciation. The court also refused, at the instance of the plaintiff, to instruct the jury that the covenant was conclusive evidence between the parties of what was agreed to be paid, and the jury thereupon found a verdict for Grundy for only #372.

The measure of damages for a breach of a covenant to convey, is the sum paid or agreed to be paid by the covenantee, and not the actual value 0f the property at the date ox the sale. ' lhe sum recited in the covenant, as having been paid or agreed to be paid, must, in the absence of other written evidence, be ever taken and held in a court of com[368]*368moti law to be the true sum. It was evidently improper in the court to prevent parol testimony to ho used either to shew that the term dollars meant bank paper, or that the covenant did not correctly recito the agreement between the parties as to tlie consideration.

Brown, for plaintiff; Crittenden, for defendant.

Wherefore, judgment reversed, and cause remanded, for further proceedings consistent herewith. Plaintiff in error must recover costs.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Ky. 367, 7 J.J. Marsh. 367, 1832 Ky. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grundy-v-edwards-kyctapp-1832.