Osborne v. Atkins
This text of 72 Mass. 423 (Osborne v. Atkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
If, as the plaintiff claims, the interest of Ballard and wife was an incumbrance upon the estate, then, the covenant against incumbrances not running with the land, the plaintiff, as the grantee of Eli Osborne, could not sue upon it, and had no cause of action against the defendant.
But it is not so. Ballard and wife, in her right, held the one fifth part of the estate by an elder and better title; by force of which, under the petition for partition, the plaintiff was evicted. His remedy for such eviction was upon the covenant to warrant and defend. Upon that covenant he sued and recovered judgment. That judgment was on the same cause of action for which this suit is brought. The plaintiff can have but one action for that one breach; and the judgment in the first sub is a perfect bar to recovery in this.
Judgment for the defendant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 Mass. 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-atkins-mass-1856.