TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ely v. Hergesell

Henry B. Ely v. Antoine Hergesell

Ely v. Hergesell, 9 N.W. 435 (Mich. 1881)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 22, 1881
Judges
Marston, Other
Citations
9 N.W. 43546 Mich. 3251881 Mich. LEXIS 585
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Covenants of warranty — Assignment of grantee’s ‘right of action — Rights of purchaser on foreclosure. The grantee in a deed containing the “usual covenant of warranty” cannot sever his right of action thereon, and assign it to another person while he keeps the premises himself. A purchaser under a mortgage is entitled to the benefit of such, covenants as run with the land. '
Summary
Error to Mason. • Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Marston

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

Marston, C. J.

Under the pleadings and facts found by the circuit judge in this case we are of opinion the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The plaintiff claimed to recover as an assignee for breach of covenants of warranty in a deed of conveyance of lands, although he at no time had any right or interest in the premises conveyed. The conveyance to the plaintiff’s assignor contained the “ usual covenants of warranty,” some of which certainly run with the land, and the grantee therein could not sever her right of action thereunder and assign the same to a third person, she still retaining the premises.

Previous to this assignment the premises had been mortgaged, and the mortgage was still outstanding and might therefore ripen into a title, and should such happen the hqlder thereof would be entitled to the benefit of such covenants as run with the land.

Even if this were insufficient there are still other objections to the plaintiff’s recovery under the facts as found by the circuit judge. In no view of the case was the plaintiff entitled to recover.

The judgment must be reversed and judgment entered in this court for the plaintiff in error with costs of both courts.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites 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