Koenig v. Branson

Supreme Court of Missouri

Koenig v. Branson

73 Mo. 634

CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

DecidedApril 15, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 Mo. 634 (Koenig v. Branson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Koenig v. Branson, 73 Mo. 634 (Mo. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Sherwood, C. J.

The words “ grant,” “ bargain,” “ sell,” when employed in a conveyance, are only to be construed as a statutory covenant of warranty against “incumbrances done or suffered by the grantor, or any person claiming under him,” and do not extend to outstanding incumbrances over which the grantor in the given conveyance has no control. Armstrong v. Darby, 26 Mo. 517; Clore v. Graham, 64 Mo. 249. For this reason, the first count in the petition stated no cause of action; and the deed offered in evidence to sustain the second count, did not have that effect. Therefore, judgment affirmed.

All concur.

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

Sherwood, C. J.

The words “ grant,” “ bargain,” “ sell,” when employed in a conveyance, are only to be construed as a statutory covenant of warranty against “incumbrances done or suffered by the grantor, or any person claiming under him,” and do not extend to outstanding incumbrances over which the grantor in the given conveyance has no control. Armstrong v. Darby, 26 Mo. 517; Clore v. Graham, 64 Mo. 249. For this reason, the first count in the petition stated no cause of action; and the deed offered in evidence to sustain the second count, did not have that effect. Therefore, judgment affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 Mo. 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koenig-v-branson-mo-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack