TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wallis v. Wallis

Abigail Wallis, versus Jonathan Wallis

Wallis v. Wallis, 4 Mass. 135 (1808)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1808
Judges
Parsons
Citations
4 Mass. 135
Cited by 40
Headnotes
If one, for a valuable consideration, bargain and sell land with warranty, to hold from the grantor’s death, no action lies, during the grantor’s life, to recover the consideratio i money paid; although an action on the covenant may lie after the death of the grantor, if a title to the land be not made to the grantee or his heirs. If such bargain and sale be made by a father to a son, the law will presume a consideration of natural affection from the consanguinity of the parties, in addition to the valuable consideration expressed in the deed, and construe it a covenant of the grantor to stand seised to his own use during his life, and after his death to the use of the grantee.
Summary
This was an action pending in Middlesex, brought by the plaintiff’s testator, Jonathan Wallis, Jun., and upon his decease, prosecuted by the plaintiff, executrix of. his last will. The declaration was assumpsit for 400 dollars, money had and received to the use of the plaintiff. At the last October term at Cambridge, the parties agreed to submit the cause to the Court upon a statement of facts; purporting that on the 11th day of June, 1805, the defendant, by his deed of that date, for the consideration of four hundred dollars expressed in the deed, gave, granted, sold, and conveyed, one fourth part of certain lands described in the deed, to the original plaintiff, (who was the defendant’s son,) his heirs and assigns; to haw and to hold after the death of the grantor; and covenanted with the grantee that *he, the grantor, was lawfully seised in fee of f * 136 J the premises, that they were free of all encumbrances, except the grantor’s right to the free improvement of said lands and buildings during the term of his natural life, and that he would warrant and defend the same to the grantee, his heirs and assigns, forever, after the decease of him, the grantor, to hold as aforesaid; that the defendant refused to permit the said testator to enter under said deed, and that the said testator never did enter the premises so supposed to be conveyed by force of said deed ; and on the first day of December, 1806, brought this action to recover back the said sum of four hundred dollars, the consideration money paid, upon the ground that nothing passed by said deed. If the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff can maintain this action, the defendant agreed to be defaulted; otherwise the plaintiff agreed to become nonsuit.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Parsons

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The cause was submitted upon this agreement without argument, and being continued nisi, the opinion of the Court was now delivered by Parsons, C. J

We do not know any legal principles, on which *126 this action can be supported. The money was not paid through mistake, being supposed to be due when it was not; it was not obtained by deceit, fraud, imposition, or oppression; nor was it paid upon an executory contract, which has happened to fail, or which has been, or might be, lawfully disaffirmed by either party. The most that can be urged for the plaintiff is, that nothing passed by the deed, as it was intended to convey a freehold in futuro ; but .he voluntarily paid the money for such a conveyance, and took a covenant from the grantor, that, after his death, the grantee and his heirs should have the land; which covenant, at the grantor’s death, may be broken, and the foundation of an action for damages, if a title to the land be not made to the grantee or his heirs.

Hastings and Bigelow for the plaintiff. Dana for the defendant.

But, fortunately for the grantee, he is mistaken in the construction of his deed. For, although it is true that by a common law conveyance a freehold cannot be conveyed in futuro, yet by a covenant to stand seised to uses, such conveyance can be effected, And every deed ought to be construed, if it be legally [ *137 ] possible, so as to effect the intent of the parties. * In this case, beside the valuable consideration expressed, a consideration of natural affection may be averred as consistent with it, (a) for the consanguinity of the parties, though not mentioned in the deed, is agreed in the case. The intent of the parties is clear, and there is a covenant of the grantor, that after his death the grantee shall have the land. This conveyance is therefore to be considered, in law, as a covenant by the grantor to stand seised of the land, to his own use during his life, and after his decease to the use of the grantee and his heirs. And upon the execution of the deed, the grantor was tenant for life, and a remainder in fee was vested in the grantee.

The plaintiff must be called.

¡XjT Vide Milbourne & Ux. vs. Assignees of Simpson, 2 Wills. 22. Roe ex dem. Wilkinson vs. Tranmer & Al., 2 Wills. 75. — Shep. Touchstone, 82, 83. — Co. Litt. 49, a. — 1 Sid. 25. — 2 Vent. 318.

[See Phillips's Ev., 8th ed. 762, and note. — Ed.]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 40 cases

View all citing references →
1811–1812: 11815–1816: 31817–1818: 11825–1826: 21827–1828: 21829–1830: 11831–1832: 11835–1836: 11839–1840: 21841–1842: 11847–1848: 11849–1850: 21851–1852: 21853–1854: 21857–1858: 11859–1860: 11861–1862: 21863–1864: 11865–1866: 11867–1868: 21869–1870: 21879–1880: 11881–1882: 21893–1894: 11899–1900: 11903–1904: 11909–1910: 11921–1922: 118112026peak 1815 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gale v. Coburn35 Mass. 397 (1836)
  2. Brewer v. Hardy39 Mass. 376 (1839)
  3. Wyman v. Brown50 Me. 139 (1863)
  4. French v. French3 N.H. 234 (1825)
  5. Hunt v. Johnson44 N.Y. 27 (1870) · Concurrence
  6. Pray v. Pierce7 Mass. 381 (1811)

Most recent

  1. Lott v. Braham116 S.E. 513 (W. Va. 1922)
  2. Southard v. Arkansas Valley & W. Ry. Co.1909 OK 197, 103 P. 750
  3. Ricker v. Brown67 N.E. 353 (Mass. 1903)
  4. Brownell v. Briggs54 N.E. 251 (Mass. 1899)
  5. Cardinal v. Hadley33 N.E. 575 (Mass. 1893)
  6. Perry v. Cross132 Mass. 454 (1882)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list