Name: Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court
Author: Noah Haynes Swayne

Quotes from Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Noah Haynes Swayne, Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court

“ Here it is neither expressed nor implied that he may refuse to pay and remain in possession of the premises, nor that the vendor shall be liable otherwise than according to his contract.
Where an adverse title is claimed, it cannot be litigated with binding effect, unless the claimant is before the court. We have shown that he cannot be made a party. One suit cannot thus be injected into another. Without his presence, the judgment or decree as to him would be a nullity. The law never does or permits a vain thing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court

“ In such cases the vendor, by his covenants, if there are such, agrees upon them, and not otherwise, to be responsible for defects of title. If there are no covenants, he assumes no responsibility, and the other party takes the risk. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court

“ Chancellor Kent well says, 'It would lead to the greatest inconvenience, and perhaps abuse, if a purchaser in the actual possession of land, and when no third person asserts or takes any measures to assert a hostile claim, can be permitted, on a suggestion of a defect or failure of title, and on the principle of quia timet, to stop the payment of the purchase-money, and of all proceedings at law to recover it.' Abbott v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court

“ The covenant of good right to convey is synonymous with the covenant of seisin. The actual seisin of the grantor will support both, irrespective of his having an indefeasible title.
These covenants, if broken at all, are broken when they are made. They are personal, and do not run with the land. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court

“ The questions presented are all questions of law. Bowman had the legal title to the entire premises, and that title he conveyed to Jaquess Brothers, and they conveyed it to Peters. The deed of Elliott and Bowman contained all the usual covenants of title. The covenant of warranty ran with the land, and passed by assignment to Peters. The deed of the Jaquess Brothers produced that result. In the event of a failure of title, Peters can sue upon this covenant in either deed. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court

“ This is a bill to enforce a lien upon real estate situate in Tunica County, in the State of Mississippi. Bowman owned the premises in fee-simple, and sold the undivided half to Bostick, and gave him a written contract, valid in equity, but not sufficient to pass the legal title. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Noah Haynes Swayne, Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court

“ Hill and Wife v. Butler, 6 Ohio St. 207; Platt v. Gilchrist, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 118; Latham v. Morgan & Fitz, 1 Smed. & M. (Miss.) Ch. 611.
The rule is founded in reason and justice. A different result would subvert the contract of the parties, and substitute for it one which they did not make. ”

Noah Haynes Swayne

Summary

Quotes from Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature

Noah Haynes Swayne

Summary

Quotes from Peters v. Bowman — Opinion of the Court (Noah Haynes Swayne)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature