Noah Haynes Swayne

Name: McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court
Author: Noah Haynes Swayne

Summary

“McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Noah Haynes Swayne. It explores elements such as Poncin, Elfelt and deed.

Quotes from McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Noah Haynes Swayne, McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court

“ Congress is equally powerless to enact with effect, to-day, that a designated person may have a patent of some parcel of land in which none but government has any spark of interest, and that upon the issue to such patent to-morrow the land shall have been the property of the patentee for the four years past. Therefore the statute produced no retroactive results by virtue of its operating upon facts themselves, and changing them from what they really were. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court

“ At the time of the entry by Poncin, under the act of 1854, Pepin was owner of the covenant of warranty contained in his deed from Poncin, and French was owner of that contained in his deed from Pepin. Neither of such covenants ever became annexed to the land; that is to say, never ran with it; because to run with lands, that is, to pass under bare mention in the deed of the land itself, the covenants must be made by or with persons who are owners of the land, or of some estate therein. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court

“ As has been before remarked, French was under no obligation as to Elfelt's title in the land. He had not covenanted to protect Elfelt's title, and he had not professed, in his deed to Elfelt, either to have or to transfer any interest whatever in the lands. Now no rule of law is better settled than that subsequently acquired interests are wholly unaffected by deeds of mere release without covenants, or without recitals of estate in the grantor. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court

“ When the act in question was passed, the United States held the land as if no entry had been made. Being the absolute owners, they could grant it upon such terms and conditions as Congress might prescribe. The government united the powers of ownership and legislation, and both were exercised in passing the act. The act declared, first, that the entry should be reinstated as of its original date, and that a patent should issue to Poncin; second, that the title should enure to the benefit of his grantees as he should have conveyed the land. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court

“ No estoppel has arisen to bar or conclude French, or any claiming under him through the Furber deed, from averring the truth. The essence of estoppel is, that the person estopped has done some act, or made some assertion, which good conscience or fair dealing would prevent him from afterward denying. If the complainant was estopped from asserting anything, it was either that Poncin had not title in 1850, or that he had not title in 1851, when he quitclaimed to Elfelt. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court

“ The premises were a part of the public domain of the United States. On the 13th of February, 1850, Peter Poncin entered at the proper land office a tract of a hundred acres. The premises are a part of that tract.
On the 28th of March, 1850, Poncin conveyed the entire tract to Pepin, by deed of warranty. On the 19th of April, in the same year, Pepin conveyed with warranty to French. On the 19th of March, 1851, French, by deed of quit-claim, conveyed all his right, title, and claim, 'both in law and in equity, as well in possession as expectancy,' to Elfelt. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court

“ The act contained a proviso, that the money paid for said lands should not have been withdrawn, or, if withdrawn, should be again paid at the land office; and enacted that thereupon a patent should issue in the name of said Pater Poncin for said lands. ”

Noah Haynes Swayne

Summary

Quotes from McCarthy v. Mann — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature