Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

10 Ohio St. 442

Tapscott v. Williams

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1841

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1841-12-15

This is an action of covenant from the county of Hamilton. In March, 3816, the dofendant by deed conveyed forty feet from the south side of lot No. 98, in Cincinnati, to Samuel W. Davies, •with a covenant of general warranty. Davies conveyed the premises to Arthur St. Clair. At his death they were assigned to his widow for her dower, and she has been evicted by a paramount title.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1841-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1985

1 district · 8 state decisions

30184118501860187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Lane, C. J.

¶1The covenant on which the suit was brought was single when.made, and by general principles must be enforced in a single action. The condition under which it admits parcelment, is a tenure of the estate by different persons, while the covenant was running with it; in this case it attaches to each separate part, and the holder of each has his separate remedy. 7 Ohio, 111, pt, 2. This condition does not exist in the present case. The land from which they were evicted is held by the children of St. Clair, as parceners, who collectively before partition have but one estate, make but one heir, have a joint interest, and should ordinarily pursue a common remedy for their rights. Co. Lit. 163, 164 ; Black. Com. 187, 189.

¶2Besides, a covenant real when broken loses its transmissible character, and becomes a mere chose in action. If broken in the life of the ancestor it descends not, but must be sued by his administrator. If it descend unbroken to the heirs, as parceners, they are parties to the contract, by virtue of their joint estate, and tf it becomes a mere claim for damages in their hands, all the survivors, as in other personal action, must join as parties to the suit.

¶3Judgment for the defendant.†

¶4 See ante 333, note.

/10/ohiost/442 · .json · Public domain