Van Nest v. Kellum
This text of 15 Ind. 264 (Van Nest v. Kellum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Suit to foreclose a mortgage. Answer: that it was given to secure the last installment- of the purchase money of a lot of ground, for which a deed, with covenants of title, was executed; and that the seller had not a title in fee. A demurrer was sustained to the answer. Judgment for plaintiff.
In a suit for breach of covenant, it is sufficient to aver the breach negatively, in the words of the covenant. Martin v. Baker, 5 Blackf. 232; Floom v. Beard, 8 id. 76. Such averment makes the pleading good, but would not necessarily involve a right to recover more than nominal damages.
But a breach of covenant that would sustain an action only to the extent of nominal damages, will not constitute a defense to a suit for unpaid purchase money, beyond the amount of one cent. Small v. Reeves, 14 Ind. 163.
The judgment is affirmed, with 1 per cent, damages and costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 Ind. 264, 1860 Ind. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-nest-v-kellum-ind-1860.