Horrigan v. Rice

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Horrigan v. Rice

38 N.W. 765, 39 Minn. 49, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 22

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJune 26, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 N.W. 765 (Horrigan v. Rice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horrigan v. Rice, 38 N.W. 765, 39 Minn. 49, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 22 (Mich. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

Where, at the time of the conveyance, the purchaser has in himself the valid title to the premises, he cannot sue on the covenants it contains, for they only extend to a title existing in a third person which may defeat the estate granted by the covenantor. They do not embrace a title already vested in the covenantee. “It mever can be permitted to a person to accept a deed with covenants of seizin, and then turn round upon his grantor, and allege that his covenant is broken, for that, at the time he accepted the deed, he himself was seized of the premises.” Fitch v. Baldwin, 17 John. 161; Beebe v. Swartwout, 3 Gilman, 162, 179; Furness v. Williams, 11 Ill. 229; Rawle, Cov. § 268; Bigelow, Estop. 346. This is decisive of the only point in this case. Had the plaintiff been induced through fraud to accept a deed of his own property, or had he done so in ignorance of the facts affecting his own rights, he might have been entitled to some form of relief. But no such suggestion is made either in his pleadings or his proof. He predicates his right to recover solely upon the covenant of seizin.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Mitchell, J.

Where, at the time of the conveyance, the purchaser has in himself the valid title to the premises, he cannot sue on the covenants it contains, for they only extend to a title existing in a third person which may defeat the estate granted by the covenantor. They do not embrace a title already vested in the covenantee. “It mever can be permitted to a person to accept a deed with covenants of seizin, and then turn round upon his grantor, and allege that his covenant is broken, for that, at the time he accepted the deed, he himself was seized of the premises.” Fitch v. Baldwin, 17 John. 161; Beebe v. Swartwout, 3 Gilman, 162, 179; Furness v. Williams, 11 Ill. 229; Rawle, Cov. § 268; Bigelow, Estop. 346. This is decisive of the only point in this case. Had the plaintiff been induced through fraud to accept a deed of his own property, or had he done so in ignorance of the facts affecting his own rights, he might have been entitled to some form of relief. But no such suggestion is made either in his pleadings or his proof. He predicates his right to recover solely upon the covenant of seizin.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.W. 765, 39 Minn. 49, 1888 Minn. LEXIS 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horrigan-v-rice-minn-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack