Kortz v. Carpenter
5 Johns. 120
Opinion
This case cannot be distinguished fronl that of Waldron v. M'Carty. (3 Johns. Rep. 471.) The covenant for quiet enjoyment goes to the possession and not to the title. It appears to be a technical rule, that nothing amounts to a breach of this covenant, but an actual eviction, or disturbance of the possession of the covenantee. (8 Co. 89. b. Comyn's Rep. Anon. 228.) The defendant is, therefore, entitled to judgment.
Judgment for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kortz v. Carpenter, 5 Johns. 120 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).
5 Johns. 120 (Kortz v. Carpenter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cassada v. Stabel
98 A.D. 600 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Claflin v. Case
53 Kan. 560 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1894)
Rea v. Minkler
5 Lans. 196 (New York Supreme Court, 1871)
Levitzky v. Canning
33 Cal. 299 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Griffin v. Reynolds
17 Ala. 198 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1850)
Fowler v. Poling
6 Barb. 165 (New York Supreme Court, 1849)
Greenvault v. Davis
4 Hill & Den. 643 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1843)
Dyett v. Pendleton
8 Cow. 727 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1826)
Trustees of Newburgh v. Galatian
4 Cow. 340 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Mackey v. Exors. of Collins
11 S.C.L. 186 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1819)
Marston v. Hobbs
2 Mass. 433 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1807)