TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Colcord v. Swan

Joseph Colcord and Another versus James Swan and Hepzibah, his Wife

Colcord v. Swan, 7 Mass. 291 (1811)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 15, 1811
Citations
7 Mass. 291
Headnotes
Where a wife joins with her husband in the conveyance of her lands with covenants of warranty, the lands pass by the deed, and the wife is estopped by her covenants; but she is not answerable in damages for any breach of them.
Summary
This was an action of covenant broken, brought upon covenants of warranty contained in a deed, executed by the defendants, and conveying the lands of the wife. When the action was stated, the Court observed that it could not be maintained against the wife. Her executing the deed operates the conveyance of the land; but, although she is estopped by her covenants, she is not answerable in damages for any breach of them. The husband alone is liable. * The plaintiffs’ counsel then moved for leave to strike [ * 292 ] her name out of the writ and declaration, and to proceed against the husband alone. The defendants’ counsel suggested that they had not known per mission granted to strike out the names of defendants, except in actions for torts; and they observed that it would be singular that a fault, which would render the plaintiffs ’ judgment void, and which need not even be pleaded in abatement of the action, should be cured merely upon motion.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

The Court

granted the amendment upon the common rule, and the defendant elected a continuance.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1818–1819: 11828–1829: 11832–1833: 21836–1837: 11840–1841: 11844–1845: 11846–1847: 11848–1849: 11850–1851: 11854–1855: 11856–1857: 11870–1871: 11872–1873: 11876–1877: 11878–1879: 21884–1885: 11892–1893: 11900–1901: 11912–1913: 118182026peak 1832 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ohio & Mississippi Railroad v. Crary1 Disney (Ohio) 128 (Oh. Super. Ct., Cinci. 1856)
  2. Wadkins v. Watson22 L.R.A. 779 (Tex. 1893)
  3. Whitbeck v. Cook15 Johns. 483 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1818)
  4. Ruffin v. Paris75 Ga. 653 (1885)
  5. Bruce v. Goodbar58 S.W. 282 (Tenn. 1900)
  6. Kuhn v. Farnsworth69 Me. 404 (1879)

Most recent

  1. Wing v. Deans102 N.E. 313 (Mass. 1913)
  2. Bruce v. Goodbar58 S.W. 282 (Tenn. 1900)
  3. Wadkins v. Watson22 L.R.A. 779 (Tex. 1893)
  4. Ruffin v. Paris75 Ga. 653 (1885)
  5. Kuhn v. Farnsworth69 Me. 404 (1879)
  6. Griner v. Butler61 Ind. 362 (1878)

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