Roberts v. Bassett
Elizabeth Roberts & others v. Joseph R. Bassett
Headnotes
Summary
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.
Morton, J.
By the reasonable construction of the contract between the parties, the defendant is entitled to a deed which shall convey a clear title to the land free from all incumbrances except the existing lease. He agreed to purchase the land, and not merely such estate or interest in it as the plaintiffs had. The words “ and owned by the vendors or either of them ” are merely words of description, intended to identify the parcel of land. *410 which is not fully described in the contract. The deed tendered by the plaintiffs would convey only such title as they had, which was a title subject to important incumbrances beside the lease. As the defendant’s contract was for a clear title, and not for a warranty deed, he was not bound to accept the deed tendered to him. Mead v. Fox, 6 Cush. 199 . Packard v. Usher, 7 Gray, 529 . Bill dismissed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 10 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.